Not checked the cards yet, but I will do at some point. Reason is, I noticed you have a lot of custom keywords. I'll tell you before someone screams it at you:
There should only be about 2 new keywords and one or two old keywords returning. If you build it into a block, you could have two custom keywords in each set, thus three sets.
now, change it before someone comes in and kills you about it.

I agree with Anuttymous.

However, I must add:

- With a quick glance, the cards seem to be very flavorful and interesting. I think you did a good job.
- You need some work with wording & spelling, but that's secondary.
- As Anuttymous said, there really are a lot of keywords. Keep it with one to two keywords in the large set, then put some of the others in the remaining two.
- The keywords are really good though, and if anything, should be used by yourself in a future set you're making.

This is an overall good job, a very good one that is. It still needs some work, however.

Right, looked at the cards.

Aerothalio – VERY powerful, in a mono white deck, this could be a 9/5 with double and flying when it comes out, easily. That's insanely powerful. I suggest trading double strike with lifelink, or first strike. Or, for mythic, possibly both, though then it would be bordering on Baneslayer Angel, which is a bad idea to make it that good.

Captain of the Silver Hand – Quite powerful, maybe lose the “Nonwhite creatures get -1/-1”, but besides that, it looks alright.

Devoted Ally – A 3/3 Vigilance for two mana, most of the time, and the only drawback is that is forces itself to be the target. Which actually stops your opponent playing any boost effects. I suggest making it at least three mana.

Dragon Hatchlings – This would be abused for its second ability. I suggest making it “If you control four/five or more Dragons...” because you'd often have more than your opponent, unless you were playing against a Dragon deck. Also, you may want to up the cost to 5, as they're 2/2 for 2 mana each, basically, then most likely a free draw and life gain.

Flight of Feathers – Nothing much wrong with it, but I suggest don't make it common. You might get away with uncommon, can't see why not.

Golden Crest Griffin – Very overpowered. First turn 3/3 flier. Compared to Isamaru, which is also rare, and only 2/2. Maybe making it +1/+1 instead should be alright.

Guardian Griffin – should be a 1/2 instead, as this will often be a 2/2 flier first turn, which is rare at best.

Holy Ground – This is either very set specific, or you meant for it to be -X/-X instead.

Light Blade of Cleansing – Could easily cost , compared to Tempest of Light, which does what this would do, but much quicker.

Light of White Dragons – Maybe make it the same as Angel's Mercy, , which is considerably a bad card.

Noble Dragon – Maybe not lifelink as well. One or the other, but not both, otherwise it could get very powerful, very quick.

Proud Wolf – Compared to Siege Mastodon and Caravan Hurda, you may want to change it, maybe 2/3?

Seraphim's Presence – A total of +6/+6, flying, lifelink AND double strike. Maybe a bit powerful. I think just keep it at +3/+3, and all the rest. Remove the second instance of +3/+3, perhaps?

Silver Cavalier – This seems more like a rare card. Maybe just if it's blocked by one specific colour, black for example, that might work?

Sword of the Silver Hand – Very expensive, when compared to Sword of Vengeance.

I wouldn't think 6 keywords too many, when there is no returning keywords, and none of them are complicated. Purity/Soiled are for all 5 colours, Tyrannize(Red | Green | Black), Ambush (Green | Black), Convert (Red | Blue | White), Reflect (White | Blue)

-------------------------------------------------------------

I made him have first strike.

I tossed the nonwhite creatures getting -1/-1

It doesn't stop boosting effects, it's only spells or abilities that target creature you control. Anyway, I removed his purity ability, left the rest alone.

4W cost now, and you only get the bonus for having atleast 4 dragons.

I think its fine as a common, 3 mana for a 1/1 flyer is high, and you need to skip a draw to get the card back.

Yes, I changed it to purity - +1/+1

I had as a 1/2 originally and I was told that was too weak, I'll waiting for further comments on him.

Well, -x/-x only would effect things like -1/-1, what about -1/-2 or the like? or -4/-0? or -0/-3? This allows any of those effects to be reversed.

I made it cost 1W

2WW for 8 life.

I tossed lifelink.

2WW for a 2/4 lifelink

I made it red/black cards.

changed to a 2WW cost.

-------------------------------------------------

Blue cards added.

Just looking at it I'm confused! Believe me, look at Wizards, they're currently running 2/3 new keywords, and bringing back an old keyword or two. But they're making huge sets, full blown sets. Going for 6 new keywords is a HUGE stretch.

I missed the "that you control" part, that's probably fair then, without the purity.

I think it's fine as common, but in Limited, you don't want to be getting too many. The main reason for making cards uncommon, is to limit the number that will appear with a small pool of cards. If you maybe lowered the mana cost, and made it uncommon, it wouldn't end up being an annoying card that doesn't get used, rather than a card that would provoke people to create a combo. A card for Johnny, as it were.

You might have to check wording for -X/-Y becoming +X/+Y, it seems a bit strange to me. But, I guess it would work.

The double strike works just as good as giving +3/+3, both would be crazy. Have a look through some other enchantments for ideas to make it feel mythic? http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?action=advanced&type=+[%22Enchantment%22]&color=+@%28+[W]%29&rarity=|[R]&subtype=+[%22Aura%22]

Will look through blue cards shortly.

Just a random comment here: I really like how you made people WANT to play monocolored without making them feel at a disadvantage.

I'm not seeing much multicoloured-promotion, I must say...

Darkwater Serpent – Compared to Nemesis of Reason, this is not very good. Maybe adjust to make it more affordable?

Dragon Hatcher – Should probably be rare, or cost a lot more, considering in the right deck this would be insane. Maybe change it so it only has the ability if you control a dragon.

Frozen Sentry – At rare I believe the Convert cost easily cost 1 mana.

Lord of Blue Dragons – For a mythic, it's not very powerful. You could probably make the convert 1 mana, considering it's unlikely to be able to kill it off, and it's only one use, and it's mythic.

Realm of Rapid Gain – Looks rather powerful, I think it should be mythic. You draw extra cards, which would make any deck scary, and then mana boost as well? Thorough playtesting would ensure the cards isn't too broken.

Silver Exile – What happens if I target is with a Giant Growth? Would it get +3,000,000/+3,000,000 if I chose? “And choose another target...”

Siren of Seas – Power and toughness? Probably only need 1/1 or 0/3.

Tears of Ice – Nonland card, otherwise this can be an ultimate first turn card.

Valley of the Floods - “In addition to their other types” otherwise this could be what they call a Time Walk situation.

It's a mono-coloured set, where all colours are at war.

I'll have to work on him a bit.

Hmm, That would probably work better flavour wise as well. Changed.

Alright, changed.

What if it gets discarded? Killed in combat? (A green deck could easily overwhelm a 6/6) and three blue to discard 3 cards is 1 for 1 and repeatable.

I'll have to think about this one for a bit. I may replace the mana accelleration with something else.

I think the wording should have been "choose a differet target" it's suppose to not be able to target him agian.

Damn, figues I forget something.

your probably right, it could be easy to mana screw someone with this.

No, thats right. hey can still attack, use abilities, draw, etc...

It's mythic, the point is you might try to discard instead, just for ten cards (which is only worth two mana for rare - Glimpse the Unthinkable.)

That's still about 45 mana without help. Considering Tome Scour which does more, for less, this ability is relatively naff, but because it's reusable, it should still stay somewhat expensive.

True, but the main reason for the card isn't to stop them using land, it's to make your islandwalkers unblockable for a turn. Not to mention the cantrip, this card would be much more powerful than the card a short way above, that taps all lands they control for 4 mana.

Oy, there's a lot of cards to go through here, but I'm just going to take on one at the moment since I don't have time for anymore before work...

Sword of the Silver Hand: Nutty already addressed the cost issue here, but there's another, more important one to consider: why does it give them vigilance? Here's the scenario to trigger that:

I see what you're going for, but it'd have to be more like a tacking on of a "Then untap equipped creature" effect. Taking into account your previous statement about the CMC change, I'd rework it as this:

Sword of the Silver Hand
Legendary Artifact - Equipment
Whenever equipped creature blocks or becomes blocked by a black creature, it gets +3/+3 and has first strike and lifelink until end of turn. Untap the equipped creature.
If ~ would enter a graveyard from the battlefield, its owner shuffles it into his or her library instead.
Equip

All in all, just reviewing this one card I can see you most likely have to check your grammar and terminology, as well the power level of your cards and how they are affected by the rules. I'm not trying to knock you or anything, tons of cards come through like this all the time, and I'm just trying to point you in the direction of making these cards better and more playable.

I think it was meant to read:

Equipped creature gets +3/+3 as long as it's blocking a black creature.
Equipped creature has vigilance, etc...

If you look at the way it's worded, I think that was how it was meant to be, that's why I didn't point anything out.

Thanks for the tips.

Yes, terminology is a tough spot. In my grop of friends we use cards from alpha to 2011, and a vast majority of them use the older wording. But atleast I don't word like portal .

And yes, the Sword was ment to give +3/+3 until end of turn against a black creature. And First strike, lifelink, vigilance always.

@Art_Freak: And don't worry about being so polite when correcting me - If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong, I'll admit it, and if I feel the need to debate a topic, I will

I can see what you mean about Valley of the Flood, bu there is a reason its a uncommon, not a common. - Perhaps if I remove the Draw Effect?

Wow, it would have been better to post less at once. There is a lot. Anyways, comments on the keywords issue.

First, although six is quite pushing it, that doesn't mean it is out of reach. Also, Wizards does usually bring back old keywords, but that doesn't mean you HAVE too. There are other ways to pay homage to the past. Now, what many people forget when designing a set is that you have themes which do not neccessarily have to be keywords. Why do you think Alara never keyworded "creatures with power 5 or more" or "whenever a creature is put into a graveyard from the battlefield"? The answer is they didn't need to. The theme was apparent anyways and they had enough keywords. Actually most of these are ability words anyways.

Purity - This is best served as an ability word.
Soiled - This shouldn't be an ability word. There is no link between the different effects here. The only thing that might link them is hating on other colors but even then not all effects are hating! This is almost like keywording Deathmark, Celestial Purge, Autumns Veil, Combust, and Flashfreeze. This theme will work just as good and probably better not worded.
Convert - Doesn't need the ability word but I think players would like refering to these as convert cards so stick with it.
Reflect - Also doesn't need an ability word on this. An effect like this shouldn't be on a lot of cards. I don't have time to look at the entire set to see everything you've done, but I wouldn't think a theme like this should be prevelant enough to be worded. It competes with shroud and "can't be the target of spells or effects your opponent controls".
Tyrranize - Def needs the keyword. Good one too.

Some card comments:

Case in Gold - I really like this card. It is pretty cool indeed.

Cloud Chaser - I would run so as not to limit to only monowhite decks.

Holy Ground - "If an effect would reduce a creature's power ot toughness, it instead raises it by that much." This is how it should be worded plus gets rid of the clunky x and y.

Dragon Hatchlings - Hmmmm... don't get the little baby WHITE dragons...

Faith - "lose" and how about gaining 10 life. 15 is a lot and a really weird number to pick. It just doesn't look or feel right.

Fields of Ice - Nice card.

Golden Crest Griffin - Still too aggresive. Even a 1/1 one drop flyer is considered aggresive. Add another bonus and it gets worse. Costed at and it is perfect and still very aggresive.

Holy Essence - See how landfall was used in Zendikar and Worldwake. It didn't appear on spells until the second set. I would suggest the same here. Use it only on permanents in the first set and then save this for the second.

Light Blade of Cleansing - Was this meant to be a choice? If so, it needs a reword.

Light of Silver Cathedral - See use this instead of Holy Essence. They fill the same design space.

Mirror Shield - Which creature does it target? It's a mystery!

Revival of the Brave - When referring to CMC you say 3 not .

Silver Cavalier - Nice card. I don't think it needs the drawback though.

That is it for now.

A general comment. You need to use "gains" and "have" properly. Static effects are "have" or "has". Temporary effects like "until end of turn" are "gains". (For instance War Gear of Brilliance should read "has vigilance")

@Nutty: I read them as I see them. It wasn't separated, so I took it as one effect triggered by blocking or being blocked by a black creature. Sorry if I seemed to be calling you on missing something important, I simply saying that my biggest concern was the effect that to me, made no sense. I could see what he was getting at, but it was poorly executed and didn't make a whole lot of sense because of it.

No, no, I wouldn't pointed it out, but then I realised that it was probably just bad wording, and I generally don't bother correcting wording, because it would make me start getting picky and end up redoing someone's whole set. I just stick to balancing the cards as best I can, than making every card I see correctly worded. Either, good idea to point it out and clear it up.

Locked against spambots.