Ummmm Dwarven Smith seems broken. It's basically SFM on crack. I wasn't here when it was made but isn't it OP?

Is it possible for me to join the templating team? Many of these cards are (very) poorly worded.

Not really a templating team. We basically take the original wording that people presented and change it so that it actually does what they wanted. There is more refining to be done. Feel free to email me suggestions. The reason why we have not already fixed all the text is that some cards will still change in playtesting.

I will say that we usually look at precedent from current MTG cards for the phrasing.

I've already made the point about "Gain(s)" versus "Has/Have" and I'm not sure if it was really noted.

Also, I may rescind my comment on the new SFM because I was not aware that their would be commons/uncommons for these sets and thus the Equipment may not be retardedly broken like the Mirran Blades (which I will argue is what they should've banned since JTMS and SFM bans still didn't stop 6 out of 8 National decklists being CaW).

Yes this will at least be a full set. Actually the design team has plans for the entire block.

And yes there are some issues with wording, trust me I know since I rewrote many of the cards. I have a database of the cards that gets edited regularly. The reason the edits are not all represented is:

1. Uploading new verbiage versions is cumbersome, especially since we can at least tell what the cards do now and we really just need that for playtesting.
2. We know that many cards will change both slightly and majorly in play testing.

Personally, I dislike Resolve as a keyword when resolve is already a keyword for when a spell is cast successfully.

So. Yeah. Dwarven Smith is stupid-broken.

If this was printed today, it would be free Batterskull . It would be banned by Wizards and the prices of the Swords and B-Skull would all sky-rocket.

Yeah you may be right. It may have to go in hand, That kind of thing will come out in playtesting. But I tend to disagree as well. It is a creature. They are easy to deal with. Stoneforge Mystic should not have been banned IMO. I actually have a problem with most bannings but that one was unnecessary.

Stoneforge may not have needed to be banned in Modern and Extended, but Standard was necessary. It was simply too good for the format at the time and there weren't many answers to it in the Standard card-pool.

As it stands, however, any creature seen as a playset in tournament-winning Legacy decks is likely broken.

JtMS was definitely ban-worthy (and should've never been printed, IMHO) but Stoneforge was on the fence.

Agreed on all counts about jace

Agreed on all counts about jace

I think dwarven smith needs some tweaking. I would recommend that you increase the cost of his ability to 4, which would in essence slow him down enough that he wouldn't be quite as powerful. He would still be extremely good, just not format warping.

I believe Dwarven Smith is broken not because it means a free Batterskull but that it means a free Batterskull EACH TURN!

I think it would be nice if it was a Stoneforge Mystic with a delayed or conditional ability. Like "T: Sacrifice Dwarven Smith" or "If a player has more life than you..." Even Stoneforge didn't have a recurring ability.

I like burkeks idea. I think that a higher activation would do it but maybe not. Playtesting will tell all. He may change completely during playtesting.

Just out of curiosity, how exactly are you play testing these cards? Do you have a program or is it actually paper?

Probably loaded into mws an testing. During that time we will encourage members of the community to playtest by themselves, with friends, or with us and give feedback on the cards. We still have some details to iron out there but that is the basic idea so far

Been lurking these articles for a while, great job to everyone involved so far. I got just a few responses to some comments here.

How would it be a free Batterskull if Batterskull isn't in this block? Unless this is meant to be played with other specific blocks, drawing on interactions to cards outside this set seems a bit futile. I agree with mozerdozer, we haven't seen what equipment is available in this block. It might all be Trusty Machete s. You can't call it broken just yet, wait for playtesting.

I also agree on 'Resolve'. It is a tad to similar to 'spell resolve' especially when you have cards in block that trigger on resolution (Collector Stone) but I understand the flavor. You could easily change it to any number of similar words: Willpower, Determination, Fortitude, Tenacity, Stamina, etc...

Been lurking these articles for a while, great job to everyone involved so far. I got just a few responses to some comments here.

How would it be a free Batterskull if Batterskull isn't in this block? Unless this is meant to be played with other specific blocks, drawing on interactions to cards outside this set seems a bit futile. I agree with mozerdozer, we haven't seen what equipment is available in this block. It might all be Trusty Machete s. You can't call it broken just yet, wait for playtesting.

I also agree on 'Resolve'. It is a tad to similar to 'spell resolve' especially when you have cards in block that trigger on resolution (Collector Stone) but I understand the flavor. You could easily change it to any number of similar words: Willpower, Determination, Fortitude, Tenacity, Stamina, etc...

THe name of resolve could certainly be changed.

To address the block structure, well. I think that in design we should plan for play in all formats. So the concerns about beast equipment is legitimate since these cards will be playtester in limited and eternal formats

You have a lot of focus on equipment, but in so far there is very few actual equipment shown. Is it all going to be common? (and therefore not incredible enough to use the dwarven smith) Or are you going to introduce them later as colorless?

All the design team can do is recommend and remind people to look at what the set needs. If the submissions we get are not filling the gaps, there is little we can do. I urge all of you to submit cards in upcoming challenges and I assure you that many of mine will be equipments. But again that s up for voting. If the community votes for them they are in, if not, they are not.

In my defense, Stoneforge Mystic didn't break Standard until Mirrodin Besieged came out, a full year later.

You have to look at the potential of a card's strength, not how it looks now.

How big will this set be?

Forget the exact number but the skeleton is designed for the first set of a normal block.

Resolve & an Equipment theme is the most anti-synergistic thing I've ever seen in a single set. Why are they both here? Strength of Sorok & such effects are kind of cool, and fit with white-blue (not so much red), but I can't really see enough of those cards to make a good deck. I mean, what's the strategy here for players? "Oh, I'm going to draft Sorok cards/make a Sorok deck. I'll guess I'll toss in these cool Equipments, and these cool dwarves that make Equipments... and then I'll grab these guys who can't get buffed by Equipment?"

Sorry, kind of ranting/flaming here. However, Resolve would be much better and more fun for players if it only prevented negative effects. If that's too strong, it could also, say, only prevent negative effects on power (which could be kind of cool & works with the Resolve enabling rares above). So: Resolve ("This creature's power and toughness cannot be decreased from their printed values." That's a lot more fun and fits better with the theme, and it isn't really that much stronger (because you just wouldn't play Resolve & Equipment in the same deck otherwise. With wording change, you can.)

I disagree that resolve and equipment are not synergistic. I think the problem is that most equipment people think of are buffs. There is plenty of design space to make equipment that does not buff it just yields good effects

Ok, yes there is some design space for Equipment that don't provide buffs. Like that Goblin Staff is pretty cool (though only works with Goblins), and there have some cool things with "Unattach this Equipment, Effect." But how does a deck benefit from playing both Resolve creatures & Equipment? It doesn't (at least not unless you force players to do so like with the indestructible Griffin). Playing Equipment with tap or non buff abilities does work with Resolve creatures, but it doesn't work better with Resolve creatures than with non-Resolve creatures. I suppose you could make Equipment like:

Double Edged Sword 3

Equipped Creature gets 0/-3 & has double strike.

Equip 1

But that works with only receiving positive boosts from Resolve too, and I don't see any Equipment like that in the set.However, in the Uncommon voting, I see an Equipment that's doing what normal equipment does, giving +1/+1 & abilities. The default of Equipment is buffs. When you say Equipment, I say Buffs. With very careful planning & restrictions you could possibly make an Equipment theme w/0 buff giving equipment, but... it wouldn't feel right for me. Innovating by making lots of non buffing Equipment could be kind of cool, but I feel there's still plenty of design space for Equipment with buffs. Even just simple stuff like finding new Equipment/Equip costs for various power/toughness boosts. Like another variation on Bonesplitter!

Big Axe 1

Equipped creature gets +3/0

Equip 3

You could also make a range of cool Equipment granting abilities, but some of those might want abilities and a power/toughness bonus. Like:

Quickening Blade 1

Equipped creatures gets +1/0 and haste.

Equip 1.

To balance Equipment it's often easy to give them a slight boost in power/toughness to make sure the Equipment is strong enough. The above Equipment could just give haste, but giving it +1/0 could make the card very playable where the lacking version might not.

Anyway, I don't want to get into a huge argument, but I'm typing what I feel will make this a better set.

we will be having more challenges coming up for card suggestions. The ones given here whether good or not will not be considered unless added in those challenges. All cards added have been and will be user created cards.

dwarven smith has been changed

How about Steadfast for the ability name instead of Resolve? The dictionary definition for Steadfast seems to fit exactly what the ability is going for - "firmly fixed in place, immovable, not subject to change". Plus, it's an adjective instead of a noun.

Is there going to be a massively detailed storyline with all of the cards? Or is this it? Just a snapshot of the average life on Sorok. The life and times of the Noggle Pirates vs. Griffin-Riding Dwarves.

There is an overall storyline of the shard that will roll out slowly

You know, as hubatish suggested, making it so resolve says This creature's power and toughness cannot be reduced as opposed to its current wording is a pretty good idea. Not only does it make the ability less parasitic but it makes it more generally useful and less of a double edged sword (something wizards has said players don't generally respond well to). Just a thought.

WOTC has said that, but I still think its a good idea. It creates a mechanic in which players have to think as do designers. I appreciate that.

I motion for SpaceCommander's idea to change Resolve to Steadfast, simply because resolve is a term already used frequently in Magic.

hubatish makes some good points, but I think we can find plenty of ways for equipment to buff creatures rather than through shear +x/+x.

A name change may indeed be in order for that reason. And I agree there are plenty of great effects out there that do not require +x/+x effects

Thanks for looking at my suggestions; and sorry for making huge posts with all the card suggestions. I still feel that making the mechanic all upside would make it mesh better with other sets, and generally more appealing to players.

Also, from the Morglen shard, there's a card: Sunthorn Ravager. The card says "If an effect would reduce Sunthorn Ravager's power or toughness, it increases those values by that amount instead." Shouldn't that card really be in this shard, seeing as it's a logical upgrade from Resolve/Steadfast?

2011/sep/1/community-set-morglen-summary (Sorry, I can't figure out how to link articles)

What does Collector Stone do, exactly? If a card is returned to your hand after it resolves, does that mean I could cast and return to my hand (unless my opponent pays mana) Ponder ? Whereas if I tried to play a Sol Ring or Curiosity , it would essentially cost 2?