Pressuring Heat is good, we might be able to use it, depending on how many of our artifacts fall into mana cost 3 or less.

For the demon, I think it might be nicer to see something unrelated to enchantments, as I can't really see a demon corruptible by the Ota. Maybe something nonenchantment and original.

Ok.
Here's a discard, but it seems a little blue too:

Amnesia
Sorcery
Target player discards his or her hand. That player doesn't draw a card on his or her next draw step. Instead, he or she can play a card discarded this way from the graveyard once per turn.

Amnesia looks pretty good, however it seems a little confusing, a more straightforward wording could be

An Idea going off of Pressuring Heat:
Forge Worker
Creature - Dwarf Citizen
: Search your library for a Artifact with converted mana cost 3 or less and play it without paying its mana cost. Shuffle your library.
: Equip target equipment you control to target creature you control without paying the equip cost.
2/1
Any Ideas on this, is it feasible?

Amnesia is indeed a bit too confusing, and in a way, doesn't work too well. The delayed triggered ability feels wierd, and I would just give up trying to figure out what I can do. I think werrdna's fix might work, though it still feels a bit odd.

Forge Worker ought to be rare, considering the search effect. And if it's rare, you could get away with instead, I would imagine. Could add the ability, and search for CMC X or less.

[edit]Also, just realised I don't actually know our designated set size. I was doing the skeleton as 249 cards, but it might actually be different.

I think you did it as 249, Guitarweeps, when you did the card codes, but we could try for more, or less. Also, I'm guessing the breakdown of colours and rarities will be the same?

Basic lands: 20 (4 of each)
Commons: 98 (21W 21U 21B 21R 21G 7A 6L)
Uncommons: 62 (11W 11U 11B 11R 11G 4A 3L)
Rares: 54 (9W 9U 9B 9R 9G 4A 5L)
Mythics: 15 (2W 2U 2B 2R 2G 2A 3P)

This should hopefully all add up. I've put more rare land than artifacts for a cycle of rare lands, and the 3P in mythics are planeswalkers, if you hadn't guessed.

Is this agreeable, or does anyone pose some changes?

Nutty,
I like the Idea of rare for forge worker and the X and cmc x or less. I also Like the Idea of 249 cards.

Forge Worker is a good idea but I am not sure if red should have equipment search? It does fit with Dwarves so we should probably push it anyways.

I think we should stick with 249; there is no reason in our set to do different. Your math is a little off though as it has 118 commons ((21*5)+7+6)=118
I had 101 commons with 19 in each color, 5 artifacts, and 1 land. Unless we want a common cycle no reason to have more than one land.
With the uncommons we had planned on a dual colored cycle with ambience at uncommon but we can change that too.
Usually the planeswalkers still count towards the individual color's distribution so that the colors are all balanced at the end of the set but we can move pieces later. They usually just upgrade a rare. Unless we want mythic artifacts I think we should just do 3 mythics of each color. In an enchantment set there is no reason to have mythic artifacts. We should do mythic enchantments instead.

More! Walls coming up first. Mind if I make them into a cycle?

Wall of Honor
Creature - Wall
When ~ enters the battlefield, gain 2 life.
Defender
0/4

Wall of Illusions
Creature - Wall
When ~ enters the battlefield, draw a card.
Defender
0/4

Wall of Rage
Creature - Wall
When ~ enters the battlefield, deal 2 damage to target creature or player.
Defender
0/4

Wall of Nature
Creature - Wall
When ~ enters the battlefield, put a 0/2 green plant token onto the battlefield that has ", Add :gmana to your mana pool."
Defender
0/4

Wall of Blood
Creature - Wall
When ~ enters the battlefield, deal one damage to target player. You gain 1 life.
Defender
0/4

Like it?

I think Wall of Omens trumps all of them.

True, True. How about they all cost and their color?

I used the ratios on [url=http://magicseteditor.sourceforge.net/node/3216]For Those Starting a New Set[/card] thread to get the number of commons, uncommons, rares and mythics. I agree with moving the artifacts to colours with the walkers, though. However, perhaps bringing up one rare artifact to a mythic?
I did do the maths a bit wrong, I think I had meant 17 of each colour (I was doing 21 x 4 in my head without realising).

20 basic lands
101 commons: 19 colour, 5 artifact, 1 land
62 uncommons: 11 colour, 2 artifact, 5 land (dual cycle)
50 rares: 9 colour, 4 artifact, 1 land
16 mythics: 3 colour, 1 artifact

Does that seem better? The uncommon 5 dual lands cycle and 2 artifacts could be switched with the rare land and 4 artifacts if we do go for rare lands. Rare would make it easier to utilise enchantment lands safely, and the dual lands are usually rare, however I personally feel dual lands are not worth rare, unless they have some other effects like "manlands". But if people think rare lands are what we should use, I'm happy with it.

As for the cards:

I think artifact search is really the best thing we can do for Dwarves.

The wall cycle is a nice idea, however I'm not thinking it's worth putting in. I'm thinking maybe the cycles in the set should all be enchantment-based cards.
I had, however, been considering an ETB lifegaining Wall, so if we reduce that to and boost the life to 4, I think we can include it. Also, make it an enchantment creature, for a bit of flavour.

Will they all work for enchantment creatures? I'm just thinking because I like cycles .

They COULD work, but the point is, unless they have, for example, all got ambience or aura swap or "Whenever an enchantment enters the battlefield..." then it feels somewhat of a wasted cycle. Might just be me, but I would prefer to keep the cycles to creatures, permanents and spells that utilise enchantments in such a way as the examples, or utilise the set's keywords, e.g. Replicate.
Now, maybe people disagree, in which case we can go for nonenchantment-related, non-keyword cycles. Even then, a defender cycle feels rather unimpressive to me.

Yeah, cycles are indeed a great tool, but a cycle of walls is not really exciting.

True, True

More!

Dwarven Slasher
Creature - Dwarf Warrior
Haste
3/2

Dwarven Backstabber
Creature - Dwarf Warrior
When ~ exits the battlefield, deal 1 damage to target creature or player.
1/1

So, you want dwarves? Ok...

Dwarven Heretic
Creature - Dwarf Cleric
: Prevent the next 1 damage to target creature or player. If you do, ~ deals 1 damage to target creature.
2/1

Magic Smelter
Creature - Dwarf Warrior
, : Destroy target enchantment. If you do, that permanents controller searches his/her library for an artifact card and puts it into play under his/her control.
4/3

Hope you like 'em...

As for frederick's cards, they're basically just reprints, but they could work in the set.
It's a shame, as he was contributing nicely.

Herzinth, red very rarely gets damage prevention, although you might get away with redirecting the damage. And red never gets enchantment removal. In fact, it goes out of its way to make sure it doesn't.
You could change the Smelter to work the other way round, destroying an artifact and searching for an enchantment. It may need to changing then, though, as you could use it yourself in a Master Transmuter kind of way.

Dwarves, you say?

Kazabethan Miner
Creature - Dwarf
: Target land you control gains ": Add to your mana pool." until end of turn. Sacrifice it at the beginning of the next end step.
1/1

Kazabethan Reclaimer
Creature - Dwarf
When ~ enters the battlefield, you gain control of target nonbasic land. It becomes a Mountain.
2/2

Kazabethan Overseer
Creature - Dwarf
When ~ enters the battlefield, put a 1/1 red Dwarf creature token onto the battlefield for each Mountain you control.
, Sacrifice a Mountain: Dwarves you control get +1/+1 until end of turn.
4/7

Mjornelm, King of Kazabeth
Legendary Creature - Dwarf
, Sacrifice a Mountain: Destroy target nonbasic land.
flavor text
3/3

Just change names if you feel like it.

Remember, Dwarves should feel unique. I don't know how to do it, really...

But I'd note that in an enchantment block, making a whole tribe work with artifacts usually isn't a very good idea. SoM, for example, only had very few enchantments. This was because artifacts filled their usual role.

Not to butt in, but for that first guy I think it might be cleaner to have it be ", Sacrifice this land: Add to your mana pool."

Nice ideas joakim. I really like the overseer although a 4/7 Dwarf is a little weird. I would probably cost it less and lower P/T. The Reclaimer is pretty crazy.

I don't think red can get away with redirection. That is a pretty cool idea though, just a RW one.

I agree with Rusty.

And change the designs as you find proper Guitarweeps. I think Dwarves would work with land + artifacts. Crafters and shapers, destroyers. You know the drill.

Rusty, butting in is the main idea of a community set! Your opinion and help is valued.

As said, the Miner would make more sense as sacrificing the land.
The Reclaimer is a very nice idea. Might have to be 2/1, considering Goblin Ruinblaster, and maybe cost 2CC.
The Overseer may be too powerful with both effects. We could split it in two: a big 7 cost that generates Dwarves (maybe 1/1 haste "sac at end of turn" Dwarves?), and a smaller with the second ability?
Mjornelm is a very nice card. However, I would definitely go with any land rather than just nonbasic land.

I like the idea of lands as well as artifacts for Dwarves. Sound like a good plan?

Here is a list of cards that might help:

Blacks

Greens

Hope you like them! I checked the wiki for all the required cards for black and green. I did all of them except for the demon.

*EDIT* Here are some more!
White

And, finally, Red!

There are a few more to do, I'll do them later. I hope all these cards helped a lot and that some of them will actually make the final cut in the set .

With the Rat, black generally doesn't get artifact destruction so evidently. Could have a discard effect perhaps, or some lifeloss, maybe equal to enchantments in graveyard or on battlefield.
The renegenator is a bit measly, you could easily get away with a bigger version. Probably 5/3. Maybe we could make the regenerate sacrifice an enchantment instead of .
Health Swap is a nice card, however I don't think black uses +1/+1 counters very much. I would say -1/-1 counters might be a good idea, but that would be very powerful, able to kill off two things. Could again have life drain for each enchantment.
Mind Sweep is a fantastic idea, although it's probably too powerful for 4 mana. You could either change it to each player, or make it cost . I think it would be nice to see it as each player.
Dark Intentions is a bit clunky, and doesn't flow too well. Could destroy target creature, then gain life equal to its toughness, maybe?
Devoted Necromancer is really quite powerful, seeing as black isn't meant to be able to pump out a creature every turn that easily. Perhaps, having it tap to give something deathtouch until end of turn instead.
For Refuse, black doesn't counter very much. Countering spells is very much a blue thing. We can leave this hole empty for a while, though.

Monstrous Basilisk is an interesting idea, although it's also a bit clunky. Also, it seems strange to have trample (an aggressive keyword) and deathtouch (a defensive keyword) on the same card. Especially, as the rules for when a trample creatue has deathtouch, it's lethal damage is 1, meaning they'd need to block a 3/3 with at least 3 creatures to actually stop the trample.
Webwiddow is a nice card, we can definitely use that.
The Wurm may need to be , considering 4C gets 5/4 in green.
Naskia feels a bit like a worse version of Ezuri, maybe we change the last ability to be something new. Not necessarily to do with Elves, perhaps?
Elite Archer, wecan't really use multikicker, as we haven't chosen it for the set, but besides that, would make it cost instead, and just leave it as it is, without defender.
The big greenie is very good. I like this card a lot. I can't see any problems at all, except it's very expensive. Could perhaps drop it to 8 mana and be 7/7.
If we change Elvish Calling to creatures rather than just Elves it'll be a bit more open for use by different people. It may need to be recosted then, though, as it'll be like a mass Summoning Trap.
Nature's Calling would need to be reworded a bit like this: "Reveal the top five cards of your library. You may put two creature cards from among them onto the battlefield, then put the rest into your hand." That's quite powerful though, so it might need to be 4CCC.
Early Spring is a nice idea, we can probably get away with putting it in.
Sacred Protector seems good, I don't think there's much wrong with it.

Thanks for the lovely mass of cards, though try be careful about what you give each colour - certain effects are only prevalent in a single colour, try not to put an effect in a colour it shouldn't be.

[edit]Will do the other colours in a moment. The edit "ninja'd" me.[/edit]

Thank you. The goal of that was to have so many cards that even if only 5% make the final cut, it's still a huge contribution . Also, I posted some red, blue and white cards while you were typing that.

*EDIT*
Artifacts coming right up!

Well, it looks like you should get a few in.

Dissipate isn't so bad, but I think the lifegain could be a bit more. Maybe we could use a Divine Offering, but for enchantments instead.

The Sphinx is a bit strange, and blue usually doesn't get discard. Perhaps we could give it a similar effect, but not discarding. I like the anti green/red though.
Shrinking is a nice card, however I think the first part ought to be 1/1 as well, in case there's only one target, meaning it becomes 2/2 and 1/1 at the same time?
See into the future has many problems, the first being the set isn't using scry as a mechanic, the main one, though, being the "If a blue card was scried". When scrying you don't reveal, just look, meaning your opponent can't see. So, I could cast it, scry into two land, and say "Yep a blue card, I get to scry 3 now." If they look, they're cheating.
Disappear has the same problem as before with destroying, as blue doesn't destroy things. You could instead return all Auras attached to a permanent.

The Dragon is nice, though it needs a bit more cost to do damage to creature, considering Ancient Hellkite, which needs to be attacking that player. Maybe to deal 1 damage to a creature or player.
The "Goblin Powder Monkey" ought to be a 1/1 for , as red generally doesn't have powerless creatures. Besides that it's a fantastic card.
Flame Wave is quite similar to Cone of Flame, though a bit better, hence the rare, I guess. I don't think there's really anything wrong. Could get away with uncommon, though. Common without the player damage I expect.
Intolerable Heat gives red revealing, but red normally has discarding at random. Maybe "deals X damage to each player and each player discards X cards at random." Possibly, "then draws X cards" as that's more typical of red abilities.
Encompassing Flames is a bit too much, with three things to hurt on. Maybe not destroy artifact, and let it be common.
Not sure about the Warhammer. Firstly, the main red civilisation in the set is Dwarves, but that can be changed, and it doesn't have an equip cost. is probably about right.
Evil Twin is rather strange, giving +1/-1, that doesn't really fit too well. Also, considering Heat Shimmer, if we have this at it might have to be a creature you control.

Thanks for more cards, keep 'em coming!
At this point, I think it would be nice to give some planeswalker ideas.
Especially for an enchantment-based planeswalker. Who will be white, I believe.

Oh Sure!! I love doing planeswalkers.

@Nutty - I think the wiki needs to be updated as a lot of these submitted are actually already filled. Not to say that they are set in stone though. BTW, how is the finished skeleton coming? You don't need to fill in every slot; as long as we know what color it needs to be we can come up with something.

@Kamahl - The first post of this has some info regarding the keywords and mechanic this set uses. Also, this is an enchantment based set...but pretty much none of the suggested cards have anything to do with that except for names, lol. Not that each card has to have soemthing to do with enchantments, that would be lame.

This is what jumped out at me.
-Mind Sweep - I would like to see this for opponent. How about this:
Mind Sweep
Sorcery
Target player reveals a card from the hand then discards the rest.

-Dark Intentions - I really like this as affecting all opponents. How about drop the second effect?
Webwidow - Seems good enough.
-Nature's Calling - Way too good I think.
-Early Spring - Cost it .
-Dissipate - Well, first off there is this, and we have too much enchantment removal in white. There is like 8 cards in the set file.
-Telepathic Sphinx - Interesting card. I am not sure this is the place for it but it is intriguing.
-Shrinking/Dissapear - Why not combine them? "Return all auras attached to target creature to their owner's hand. That creature loses all ablities and becomes 1/1."
-Dwarven Quickknife - Fine card, I would like to maintain the traditional Dwarven flavor which arms them with axes and hammers.
-Goblin Powder Monkey - Aside from Goblins not being in this set, this is worse then pretty much every burn card red has ever had (aside from the fact you can chump block).
-Intolerable Heat - What he meant by "Reveal Card Damage" was something like this: "Reveal the top card of your library. ~ deals X damage to target creature or player, where X is the converted mana cost of that card."

On those two edited-in cards, the 1 CMC 1 equip isn't too bad, although maybe instead of reducing cost increase boost to +2/+0? And the flavourful cantrip, well it's missing the cantrip part really, and revealing just one card is a bit boring, and unlikely to do much.

I was planning to start filling in the wiki/set file once I'd posted up the skeleton up, so we could see which of them actually needed to be put into the file.
And, as for the skeleton, I finished it yesterday, just forgot to put it up. It'll be in the spoiler at the end.

Some of the cards nearer the end of it I really wasn't sure on, so I've left them relatively blank.

[edit=1]Also, are we going to have incessant throughout all rarities, or should we keep it at least uncommon. It is considerably good, seeing as it renews itself, and can go on a lot with something to move the Aura from the token, so I'm thinking it might be an idea to avoid it blowing apart limited play by appearing in common.[/edit]

[edit=2]Found a small problem with Lumessence:

Just scrap Lumessence. We have too many whites!

I have no problem with incessant at common. Proper costing and effects are key. Also, answers like grave removal, exiling enchantments, and effects targetting enchanted creatures will help.

Some cards:

On the cards:
Refflar Mass has no P/T, though 4/4 should be okay at common. Maybe 5/4?
Agent of the Ota is a nice card, I don't see any problems, except maybe in the flavour of the card - why would an agent for the Ota want to destroy enchanted creatures? But that can be changed later namewise.
Descendence of Frailty doesn't work? The Aura is giving the creature an ETB effect, but the creature must have already entered in order to be enchanted. I think you meant for the Aura to have the ETB effect. At rare, I think it should be discards X cards, where X is its power. And maybe a bit cheaper, seeing as that's a lot of mana, by which time they'll only have one or two cards left.

I am slowly progressing with the skeleton and the set file and all, but I just realised I could be asking a few things as I go.

So, how about we get some ideas for the second cycle in the set: cycle 2 (C_11) – enchantment turning into creature cycle

The current ideas are things like: "Whenever a creature enters the battlefield, CARDNAME becomes a 3/3 first strike"; "Whenever land ETB, becomes 1/1 with ": Add one mana of any colour to your mana pool"; "Whenever cast instant, becomes 1/2 deathtouch".

So, ideas for enchantments that become creatures upon trigger?

[edit]Right, here's the set file with the skeleton in it. I'll try to sort out the wiki soon, but ... We're close enough that it's probably not worth continuing - just put everything up here. That's in terms of the cards, at least. With the story, we could still keep the wiki updated. But, at the least, the front page will be updated with all the stuff.

Set file[/edit]

I need to post this for the Wrath of God slot. It doesn't feel like much but... here:

[Cardname]
Sorcery
Destroy all nonland permanents. Treat all destroyed auras as if they had incessant.

Wording is weird too.

That is pretty cool. I think it should cost for that effect though.
Maybe "Auras gain incessant until end of turn. Destroy all nonland permanents"? I don't know. Your wording seems fine too.

Refflar Mass is 5/4

I acutally had major internet issues and posted those three cards like four times before it finally went through. Here is the correct card:

Descendence of Frailty
Enchantment - Aura
Enchant creature
Enchanted creature gets +2/+0 and deathtouch.
Whenever ~ ETB, target player reveals their hand. That player discards each card with CMC less than enchanted creature's power.
Incessant

EDIT: Grinvow and Ob Nixilis are still in the set file... you can axe both those guys.

The Wrath of God seems like a great idea. Maybe this for wording: "Destroy all nonland permanents, then put a 1/1 colorless Spirit creature token onto the battlefield for each Aura destroyed this way, and return that Aura to the battlefield attached to it."
Actually... That might be far too wordy. Though, if you think about it, it's basically just removing the word incessant and the brackets around its reminder text.

I think Descendence of Frailty would be easier to just discard cards equal to power, as it feels less clunky, and a bit more rare, perhaps.

I haven't removed any cards from the file just yet, because, as I forgot to mention, there are some marked 99 and 88, that I thought people may want to argue to keep. The mythics I just let lie for a bit, until we've got most of the commons and uncommons cleaned up.

[edit]Actually, the wording I produced fits neatly on a card, so maybe?[/edit]

Descendence of Frailty - I just didn't want to do the obvious. I guess I'll concede the point.

I am thinking up more stuff on that cycle and the other you mentioned.

EDIT:
Cycle 2 - Ok well currently these suck... what is the point of having a card that does nothing except turn into a creature occasionally? Well, it has to be uber powerful. Opal Chavelier is the only one that is slightly powerful. The other two are horrible. Another thing is that they do not feel at all like enchantments. I suggest that we either make them have abilities as enchantments or add a activation cost as well.

For instance:
Opal Chevalier
Enchantment
Whenever a creature ETB under your control, gain 1 life.
Whenever you cast a creature spell, Opal Chevalier becomes a 3/3 Knight creature with first strike until end of turn. It is still enchantment.

Opal Kindlefires :
Enchantment
Damage cannot be prevented.
Whenever an opponent is dealt damage, ~ becomes a 5/1 Elemental creature with trample until end of turn. It is still an enchantment.

The only thing is that then they almost feel uncommon. Also, what if we made the trigger more restrictive and made the change permanent instead of until end of turn?

EDIT 2: For CA03, what about reprint Prismatic Lens?

Opal Tides
Enchantment
Whenever a player draws a card not on their draw step, ~ becomes a blue 2/3 merfolk creature token until EOT. It's still an enchantment.
, Reveal the top card of your library.

We could go with a lurking-type cycle? But they were rares and uncommons. We can always push the cycle up to uncommon. However, I don't really see many problem with a common cycle of enchantments that only become creatures for one turn. I'd happily use the knight. I think we just need some for the other colours.
Also, are we going to use the same triggers, or different ones? Creatures entering the battlefield for them all? Casting different spells?

So in effect - uncommons with normal abilities and animations, or commons with just animation abilities?

For Prismatic Lens, it seems like a good reprint, although we'll have to check for how many reprints we've got. I don't think there are too many at the moment.

Forgive me if this is a closed group set, but if I may suggest a few options...

1. Do one common cycle that activates for one turn and one rare cycle that activates indefinitely. Both would have their own triggers, though the matching colors could share a trigger (ex. the white cards could have "Whenever you play a creature spell, [effect]"), with the difference being the rare would have a higher cost of a trigger (following the previous example, "Whenever you play a creature spell, if it was the third creature spell cast this turn, [effect]") for a lasting effect ("...This doesn't end at the end of the turn.")

2. Same as above, but with a Quest-counter-esque requirement.

3. A common cycle in the first set, with low p/t and no abilities, an uncommon cycle in the second set, with mid-ranged p/t and a small ability, like looter or a keyword, and a rare/mythic cycle in the third set with p/t, and a bigger ability, two keywords, or a keyword with a mid-ranged ability. If you do this one, I suggest the last, but with allowance for some slight color bleed.

Hope I helped even a little.

The set is constantly open to new helpers, although we're getting close to finishing now.

I don't think it would be a good idea to have two similar cycles in the same set, as it would creep upon design space unnecessarily.
The third idea seems manageable, we'll have to see what we decide to do for the second set, but another cycle might be allowable.

im not sure where but I remember discussion about an Umbra Mystic-like card for incessant. How about this?

[cardname]
Creature-Human Wizard
Whenever you play an aura with enchant creature, you may put a 1/1 spirit token into play with that aura enchanting it.
2/4

I like the idea of the card, though it's a bit strange. It could work, but it would make incessant not work, because incessant only works when not on a token. So, I cast an incessant Aura, I end up not wanting to use this ability which would normally generate an extra creature.

[edit]I will be purging any 99s in the set soon, i.e. anything that doesn't seem to fit will be removed, the 99 refers to the card's code. If anyone feels that any should be kept please look through the file (link) and tell me, preferably with reason. The card codes are in the copyright box. You should be able to filter most with the search bar.[/edit]

I think you can axe them all, except for Apprentice Transmuter, Stoneworker, Essence of the Bastion, Locked in Lights, and the uncommon charge counter cycle. I am not convinced they have made their run yet. I think they have potential and maybe need just a slight revision, rarity change, or total revamp.

Also, in the set file there is Amnesia... we could change the name but I think we could just remove it. The clause to play a discarded card doesn't work and is really weird. It is the same idea of Mind Sweep which is cleaner. Although Mind Sweep needs to cost more, probably .

On the animator cycle - In order for this to realistically work at common, it would have to be something that could be used often. Cards with weird criteria and requirements to make work are usually done at the higher rarities. So, if it is common, it should be like Glint Hawk Idol so you can use it every turn if you want. We could push it up to uncommon and do a lurker type effect or something like our very own Locked in Lights. That would be my preference, but my only comment there is to have them all feel like a useful enchantment while waiting to be "awakened" rather than do nothing until the criteria are met like the Urza cards.

For instance...

CARDNAME
Enchantment
Creatures you control get +0/+1.
Whenever you are attacked by three or more creatures, ~ becomes a 3/3 white Knight creature in addition to its other types with first strike.

OR

CARNAME
Enchantment
Creatures you control get +0/+1.
Whenever a creature attacks you, put a charge counter on ~.
As long as ~ has four or more charge counters on it, it becomes a 3/3 white Knight creature in addition to its other types with first strike.

The first one deters people from attacking with a lot of creatures while the second feels like an anti-quest. I prefer the second idea personally.

I agree with Amnesia and Mind Sweep, I'll mark Amnesia as 99 for deletion.
I changed the ones you said to 88s for now, although I'm not sure Essence of the Bastion is worth keeping, as, like joakim said previously, it has no way to get itself onto the battlefield. Cards generally shouldn't require another thing to get it down.
As for Locked in Lights and its ilk, I just think they're a bit wordy and clunky. They can be revamped as our quest version of the animation cycle.

With the two ideas shown, I prefer the first one, though it seems like the effect should be in rare. The counter idea just reminds me of Golem Foundry, which was a generally unused card.
Although, the second one isn't too bad. I think we could do counters, if it's prefered.

I disgree on it being like Golem Foundry, I think it is closer to the Zendikar quests. That would be something that would be effected more by the individual card designs too. Also, that is another reason I am pushing for a static effect. That way it always has some type of board presence as an enchantment should.

I think, with the counters being added, there's no need for it to have a static ability. The ascensions from Zendikar didn't use such a thing. I think, if you're adding counters, you realise it's presence, and then at one point you get a creature out of it. With the static ability it becomes a bit too much for uncommon.

First I would like to say I recently got completely destroyed by Golem Foundry + Proliferate the other day in a draft.

Ok, so I do not agree at all about the static effects on the animators but whatever, doesn't really matter.

Here is draft 1.0

CW11
Enchantment
Whenever a creature attacks you, put a charge counter on ~.
As long as ~ has three or more charge counters on it, it is a 3/3 Knight creature in addition to its other types with first strike.

CU11
Enchantment
Whenever an opponent casts a non-creature spell, put a charge counter on ~.
As long as ~ has two or more charge counters on it, it is a 3/4 Bird creature in addition to its other types with flying.

CB11
Enchantment
Whenever a creature is put into a graveyard from the battlefield, put a charge counter on ~.
As long as ~ has two or more charge counters on it, it is a 3/2 Horror creature in addition to its other types with intimidate.

CR11
Enchantment
Whenever an opponent is dealt damage, put a charge counter on ~.
As long as ~ has two or more charge counters on it, it is a 4/2 Elemental creature in addition to its other types with "this cannot be blocked except by two or more creatures".

CG11
Enchantment
Whenever an opponent draws a card, put a charge counter on ~.
As long as ~ has five or more charge counters on it, it is a 5/5 Beast creature in addition to its other types with trample.

I like the suggested cycle there, they look to work really well. Thanks for coming up with these.
One thing I'd say is that the black and red ones don't seem to be based upon your opponent's actions as much the rest. The black one can be changed to "an opponent's graveyard", but the the red one seems a bit harder to change.
Also, the green one seems a bit too powerful, as for only two mana you could get a 5/5 trample, even if it is after a few turns. Maybe ?

Good points. I did think about how they didn't seem to vibe with opponent's actions as much. At first the red was when you were damaged but that didn't seem to fit red's pie; what do you think? You can adjust the black and green one as you see fit.

The wiki missed a big leech life entry.

Festerchain
Instant
~ deals X damage to target creature and X damage to it's controller.
You gain twice times X life.

I think a better wording for Festerchain would be as follows:

Festerchain
Instant
~ deals X damage to target creature and X damage to that creatures controller.
You gain XX life.

Mainly, 'twice times X' just sounds...off. As for 'to it's controller' I thought it damaged you for a second because of the wording ('it' could have just as easily meant Festeringchains as the target). Just some ideas.

You gain XX life mathematically means that if I pay 3 for X, I gain 9 life.