Because it's already defined in the rules and a subtype and would be needlessly complicated?
Good point. Everything printed on Steamflogger Boss notwithstanding (because he doesn't matter), "Contraption" is still defined as an artifact subtype. So no matter what a Contraption ends up being, it's still going to be shatterable.
It was at that moment that I realized: I'm kinda just making these things up. We can just write the rules the way we want them to work. People will have fun, and people will get it.
More of my 18c: Component feels like the right word (unless there's another word that means the same thing but sounds more haphazard) and 'attach to noncreature, noncomponent artifact' sounds like the right reminder text for assemble.
Would anyone mind if I began fleshing us out some world details (plane name, name of mana steam, etc) and a few preliminary legends? I had an idea for outlaw and lawman characters, and we can include archetypes like 'evil industrialist', 'mad inventor', 'wise native', basically getting a Western feel in a steampunk, colonisation (when Europe decided to 'civilise' the rest of the world) setting. That gives us lawless frontier and civilised noble class without resorting to American history.
Oiled Gears2
Artifact Contraption
Assemble (2/U)(Attach to target artifact you control. Assemble only as a sorcery)
Assembled artifact untaps during each player's untap step.
Steam Generator2
Artifact - Contraption T: Add 2 to your mana pool.
Assemble 2(Attach to target artifact. That artifact gains all of this card's abilities.)
Vitality Works(2/W)
Artifact - Contraption
:symtap:: You gain life equal to the number of artifacts attached to ~ plus 1.
Assemble 1(1: Attach target noncreature artifact you control to this permanent. Assemble only as a sorcery.)
Rigger's Robot Maker 3R
Creature Rigger
Sacrifice an artifact, tap: Assemble [Assemble - Contraption] Exile three target artifacts with different names from your graveyard. Put a token of a random card exiled on the battlefield. It is a Contraption in addition to its other types.
1/1
As far as I can tell they fall into three categories...
1) The Contraption functions independently other Contraptions but can interact with them through it's abilities.
2) The Contraption acts like an Equipment for artifacts.
3) The Contraption makes other artifacts act like an Equipment for it.
I like either 2 or 1. Preferably, both. (contraptions that have abilities of their own, and then give those abilities when they're equipped).
I've already discussed why I don't like 3.
@regitnui: We'll get to specific flavor, but right now we'll focus on contraptions. Basically, we want to keep this thread focused for now. Don't worry, we'll get to it, but we want to finish this discussion first.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"In the beginning, MTG Salvation switched to a new forum format.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
It was at that moment that I realized: I'm kinda just making these things up. We can just write the rules the way we want them to work. People will have fun, and people will get it.
Only 2 and 3 are mutually exclusive, really. 1 can easily go in, IDK whether I like 2 or 3 better.
There's nothing flavourfully wrong with attaching random things to a contraption. Haphazardly stacking stuff gives the coolest image in my head. The only problem is that we can't say "if there's a Darksteel Axe attached to this, then do this, but if there's also a Lux Cannon on top, do this instead", and not caring about the random stuff attached is weird. My problem isn't with being able to attach both a Leonin Scimitar and a Wildfield Borderpost to one contraption. It's that they'll do the same thing.
So I think I'll stick with saying 1 and 2 are good.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're having creature problems I feel bad for you son
You got 99 attackers but I'm blocking with 1.
The Winner is Judge | 7
This Winner is Also Judge | 6
Club Flamingo | Lots
I'm with 1 or 2. The problem with 3 is that when most players use auras or equipment, they stick it under the creature to indicate the attachment. If you go with 3, then players will want to stick their Darksteel Colossi under their 1-mana, gain-1-life-per-turn cards, and it takes a lot of clarity away from gameplay.
It was at that moment that I realized: I'm kinda just making these things up. We can just write the rules the way we want them to work. People will have fun, and people will get it.
Haha. Just a question for the set creators, since Contraptions are artifacts themselves, can you attach contraption A to contraption B and at the same time attach contraption B to contraption A?
Haha. Just a question for the set creators, since Contraptions are artifacts themselves, can you attach contraption A to contraption B and at the same time attach contraption B to contraption A?
Nah, that'd be too confusing. I guess this is why they should be limited to "non-contraption artifacts", thus killing forever my dream of chaining contraptions.
It was at that moment that I realized: I'm kinda just making these things up. We can just write the rules the way we want them to work. People will have fun, and people will get it.
More of my 18c: Component feels like the right word (unless there's another word that means the same thing but sounds more haphazard) and 'attach to noncreature, noncomponent artifact' sounds like the right reminder text for assemble.
I vote for this--non-chaining Components. We'll leave Contraption madness for someone else to deal with. ;P
I almost think Components fit our theme better anyways. Making things better is, in a nutshell, the whole mentality of steampunk.
Also, if we don't use Contraptions, we aren't forced to use Riggers, not having Goblins doesn't seem weird, and we don't have to conform to anything. Gremlin Artificers sound good for making Components, as well as some (W/U) Component manufacturers (maybe even (U/B)?), Gremlins can have some mischievous abilities that allow them to "disassemble" Components elegantly (ch-ching!), and it won't feel awkward to have Components from all five colors, so long as we keep the interaction aspect skewed towards our intended color pair and its splinter group.
I also don't think noncreature is necessary here. As I sated before, the overlap with equipment is ok because there is an overlap between artifacts and creatures themselves. It makes sense to be able to upgrade a mindless automaton as easily as a voltaic key. It would also allow us to make artifact creature only components (though we'd have to be carefully not to tread on equipments toes; stay away from p/t pumps). Imagine, for a rough example, a rocket booster component that gives the assembled artifact creature haste. We could also make components that upgrade equipment.
1) The Contraption functions independently other Contraptions but can interact with them through it's abilities.
2) The Contraption acts like an Equipment for artifacts.
3) The Contraption makes other artifacts act like an Equipment for it.
Thanks for doing this, Raptor. As much as it was my brainchild (and Collector's, with his designs), I hate #3 now. That being said, I still think we shouldn't make Contraptions "Equipment for artifacts" without some mechanical twist, no matter how small. Here's an idea I had:
Assemble [cost] ([cost]: Attach this to target artifact you control. That artifact is a Contraption in addition to its other types.)
Rendering this on MSE, I made the unfortunate decision to take out "assemble only as a sorcery" for the sake of shortness/simplicity -- but 1) being able to assemble at instant speed opens up fun shenanigans and 2) we don't have cheap combat tricks to worry about, unlike Equipment (no one likes Cranial Plating, but it's not like Contraptions will be giving +X/+0 to artifacts). Overall, this contributes to the Rube Goldberg-ness we want without being overbearingly complex. This also means we can use the phrase "assembled Contraption" instead of "assembled artifact," which doesn't sound as flavorful.
Steam Flues2
Artifact - Contraption T: Add 1 to your mana pool.
Whenever assembled Contraption becomes tapped, add 1 to your mana pool.
Assemble 1(1: Attach this to target artifact you control. That artifact is a Contraption in addition to its other types.)
Difference Engine4
Artifact - Contraption
Whenever assembled Contraption or a Contraption attached to ~ becomes the target of a spell or ability, draw a card.
Assemble—Discard a card (Discard a card: Attach this to target artifact you control. That artifact is a Contraption in addition to its other types.)
Spanner in the Works1RR
Instant
Disassemble target Contraption. (Unattach that Contraption and all Contraptions attached to it.)
~ deals 2 damage to target creature or player for each Contraption unattached this way.
Fulmination1R
Instant
Destroy target Contraption and all Contraptions attached to it.
I agree with most of what Curious said, but with the exception of the individual parts should be called components, if the artifacts they attach to gain the contraption subtype. That way, assemble can be (attach this component to target noncreature, noncomponent artifact. That artifact gains the subtype contraption in addition to its other types) and disassemble can be (unattach target/all component/s from target contraption.)
I agree with regitnui, I think Basic & Curious have both managed to solve our problem. I prepose moving forward with this...
Red Wire2 Artifact - Component
If assembled Contraption would be disassembled, instead sacrifice ~.
Assemble (:1mana:: Attach this to target non-Component artifact you control. That artifact is a Contraption in addition to its other types
^---- Yes I know there aren't red wires in Steampunk get over it.
If everyone likes this we should be able to move forward. I think this is an great and elegant design. Great Job everybody. :thumbsup::thumbsup:
If everyone likes this we should be able to move forward. I think this is an great and elegant design. Great Job everybody. :thumbsup::thumbsup:
I agree! This looks great! :thumbsup::thumbsup: (I do think it should still have "Assemble only as a sorcery" though. If picking up a sword is sorcery speed, assembling a contraption definitely should be. Plus, as someone stated, being that they are similar to equipment, that similarity will be used when learning it, so there should be a parallel there.)
I think our next step should be to update and (re)organize all the info in the OP.
I'm happy with this. Flavorful, logical, and open to good design. My only concern is that by separating Components and Contraptions we make cards that refer to either one too narrow. So, I think we'd have to design a lot of cards with "target Component or Contraption" instead of just "target Component" or "target Contraption."
I feel like we're being limited by the English language -- if only there were some word that fits the spirit of both "component" and "contraption."
I'm happy with this. Flavorful, logical, and open to good design. My only concern is that by separating Components and Contraptions we make cards that refer to either one too narrow. So, I think we'd have to design a lot of cards with "target Component or Contraption" instead of just "target Component" or "target Contraption."
I feel like we're being limited by the English language -- if only there were some word that fits the spirit of both "component" and "contraption."
I'm no linguist, but I should think that the major languages would have no problem with words to differentiate between "part" and "whole".
Well let's wait for MOON-E/Ninja Caterpie/whoever. It's not like we've had a design that everyone's agreed on yet
Well, there was an implied "if everyone agrees" there.
Additionally, we should maybe think up a basic idea of how we want the block to evolve while we update it.
Nah, that'd be too confusing. I guess this is why they should be limited to "non-contraption artifacts", thus killing forever my dream of chaining contraptions.
Once upon a time, in my first set design, I had an ability called imbue.
Imbue [cost] (Target permanent that shares a card type with this card gains all abilities of this card until end of turn)
The set was pretty crappy, but I always thought this mechanic had potential. I never realized it, but maybe you guys could modify it a bit for your needs and see what can be done with it. I know it lacks a wee bit of the 'putting together the grand machine' aspect of an attaching version, and there could potentially be some memory issues but I think it helps a bit with all the complexity involved in combining artifacts while still giving you the desired effect - assembling abilities.
Basic has a point about the "Assemble only as a sorcery" part, I'm in favor of it and will add it if your ok with it Curious.
I vote for this as the final wording:
Assemble (Cost) (Attach to target non-component artifact. That artifact is a contraption in addition to its other types. Assemble only as a sorcery.)
• Sorcery Speed
• Becomes a Contraption
• Works on creatures
I think we should now try to make a mechanic (doesn't have to be an actual mechanic, could just be a theme) for each faction (w/ splinter). In Innistrad design, WotC made sure there were interesting strategies for every color pair, even the ones that didn't match with the tribal themes. Contraptions work for (W/U)R, and Spellslinging works for (B/R)W, what about the rest? (Also, for the colorless matters, what about the name Monochrome?)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"In the beginning, MTG Salvation switched to a new forum format.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
It was at that moment that I realized: I'm kinda just making these things up. We can just write the rules the way we want them to work. People will have fun, and people will get it.
Basic has a point about the "Assemble only as a sorcery" part, I'm in favor of it and will add it if your ok with it Curious.
I recommend everyone looking at mockups of Components in MSE as we talk about this. The absolutely full reminder text would be:
(Attach this to target artifact you control. That artifact is a Contraption in addition to its other types. Assemble only as a sorcery. This card enters the battlefield unattached and stays on the battlefield if the artifact leaves.)
It's easy to say we can forget about that last sentence, but Darksteel Garrison included it even after Equipment abandoned it with the release of Fifth Dawn. That being said, I think it's more than reasonable to get rid of it. So instead we have:
(Attach this to target artifact you control. That artifact is a Contraption in addition to its other types. Assemble only as a sorcery.)
Which is shorter, but still takes up a lot of card space. Can we just say that we won't print reminder text on any of the rare/mythic Components to allow for more complex effects or flavor text? There's precedent for that.
EDIT: I just noticed that everyone is writing "non-Component." Why is that...? Is there an issue with attaching Components to other Components, especially considering we can already attach Components to Equipment?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yes, but surely that means we're finding out what's best. I'm sure Wizards' design teams go in circles all day long.
I still like where we've gone with The Most Curious Thing's original idea though.
Perhaps we need to collect all the ideas we have for it in one spot and compare/contrast them.
Good point. Everything printed on Steamflogger Boss notwithstanding (because he doesn't matter), "Contraption" is still defined as an artifact subtype. So no matter what a Contraption ends up being, it's still going to be shatterable.
I'd much rather do that than blindly accept any given design. I think we're slowly making progress. I hope
Right now, my vote goes to the non-chain (because no one likes it...) artifact equipment version.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
Comic Book Set
Archester: Frontier of Steam (A steampunk set!)
A Good Place to Start Designing
Would anyone mind if I began fleshing us out some world details (plane name, name of mana steam, etc) and a few preliminary legends? I had an idea for outlaw and lawman characters, and we can include archetypes like 'evil industrialist', 'mad inventor', 'wise native', basically getting a Western feel in a steampunk, colonisation (when Europe decided to 'civilise' the rest of the world) setting. That gives us lawless frontier and civilised noble class without resorting to American history.
Decks:GU Evolver, W Modern Knights
Apprentice of Spell Manipulation
Archester: Frontier of Steam
As far as I can tell they fall into three categories...
1) The Contraption functions independently other Contraptions but can interact with them through it's abilities.
2) The Contraption acts like an Equipment for artifacts.
3) The Contraption makes other artifacts act like an Equipment for it.
Sig by Rivenor
Cube. The best way to play Magic. PERIOD. Come over and check it out. Also, check out my Peasant Split Card Cube.
The World of Pokemon RPG has been rebooted. Come over and check it out.
Set Creation Projects: Archester: Frontier of Steam Come over and check out our AWESOME Steampunk set.
(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)
I've already discussed why I don't like 3.
@regitnui: We'll get to specific flavor, but right now we'll focus on contraptions. Basically, we want to keep this thread focused for now. Don't worry, we'll get to it, but we want to finish this discussion first.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
Comic Book Set
Archester: Frontier of Steam (A steampunk set!)
A Good Place to Start Designing
There's nothing flavourfully wrong with attaching random things to a contraption. Haphazardly stacking stuff gives the coolest image in my head. The only problem is that we can't say "if there's a Darksteel Axe attached to this, then do this, but if there's also a Lux Cannon on top, do this instead", and not caring about the random stuff attached is weird. My problem isn't with being able to attach both a Leonin Scimitar and a Wildfield Borderpost to one contraption. It's that they'll do the same thing.
So I think I'll stick with saying 1 and 2 are good.
You got 99 attackers but I'm blocking with 1.
The Winner is Judge | 7
This Winner is Also Judge | 6
Club Flamingo | Lots
Sig by Rivenor
Cube. The best way to play Magic. PERIOD. Come over and check it out. Also, check out my Peasant Split Card Cube.
The World of Pokemon RPG has been rebooted. Come over and check it out.
Set Creation Projects: Archester: Frontier of Steam Come over and check out our AWESOME Steampunk set.
(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
Comic Book Set
Archester: Frontier of Steam (A steampunk set!)
A Good Place to Start Designing
"Full" followed by "Speed" and "Ahead".
Avalon: The Legend Begins :: Pirate Set :: Babel: The Æther Wars
Favorite Magic Card: Fowl Play
[Primer] [Barrin's Tome]: A Master Wizard's Spellbook.
Don't you mean "Full", "Metal", "Alchemist?"
Haha. Just a question for the set creators, since Contraptions are artifacts themselves, can you attach contraption A to contraption B and at the same time attach contraption B to contraption A?
Nah, that'd be too confusing. I guess this is why they should be limited to "non-contraption artifacts", thus killing forever my dream of chaining contraptions.
I like it, but does that mean we're actually going to make this a full block?
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
Comic Book Set
Archester: Frontier of Steam (A steampunk set!)
A Good Place to Start Designing
Decks:GU Evolver, W Modern Knights
Apprentice of Spell Manipulation
Archester: Frontier of Steam
I vote for this--non-chaining Components. We'll leave Contraption madness for someone else to deal with. ;P
I almost think Components fit our theme better anyways. Making things better is, in a nutshell, the whole mentality of steampunk.
Also, if we don't use Contraptions, we aren't forced to use Riggers, not having Goblins doesn't seem weird, and we don't have to conform to anything. Gremlin Artificers sound good for making Components, as well as some (W/U) Component manufacturers (maybe even (U/B)?), Gremlins can have some mischievous abilities that allow them to "disassemble" Components elegantly (ch-ching!), and it won't feel awkward to have Components from all five colors, so long as we keep the interaction aspect skewed towards our intended color pair and its splinter group.
I also don't think noncreature is necessary here. As I sated before, the overlap with equipment is ok because there is an overlap between artifacts and creatures themselves. It makes sense to be able to upgrade a mindless automaton as easily as a voltaic key. It would also allow us to make artifact creature only components (though we'd have to be carefully not to tread on equipments toes; stay away from p/t pumps). Imagine, for a rough example, a rocket booster component that gives the assembled artifact creature haste. We could also make components that upgrade equipment.
This is perfect!
Thanks for doing this, Raptor. As much as it was my brainchild (and Collector's, with his designs), I hate #3 now. That being said, I still think we shouldn't make Contraptions "Equipment for artifacts" without some mechanical twist, no matter how small. Here's an idea I had:
Assemble [cost] ([cost]: Attach this to target artifact you control. That artifact is a Contraption in addition to its other types.)
Rendering this on MSE, I made the unfortunate decision to take out "assemble only as a sorcery" for the sake of shortness/simplicity -- but 1) being able to assemble at instant speed opens up fun shenanigans and 2) we don't have cheap combat tricks to worry about, unlike Equipment (no one likes Cranial Plating, but it's not like Contraptions will be giving +X/+0 to artifacts). Overall, this contributes to the Rube Goldberg-ness we want without being overbearingly complex. This also means we can use the phrase "assembled Contraption" instead of "assembled artifact," which doesn't sound as flavorful.
Steam Flues 2
Artifact - Contraption
T: Add 1 to your mana pool.
Whenever assembled Contraption becomes tapped, add 1 to your mana pool.
Assemble 1 (1: Attach this to target artifact you control. That artifact is a Contraption in addition to its other types.)
Difference Engine 4
Artifact - Contraption
Whenever assembled Contraption or a Contraption attached to ~ becomes the target of a spell or ability, draw a card.
Assemble—Discard a card (Discard a card: Attach this to target artifact you control. That artifact is a Contraption in addition to its other types.)
Spanner in the Works 1RR
Instant
Disassemble target Contraption. (Unattach that Contraption and all Contraptions attached to it.)
~ deals 2 damage to target creature or player for each Contraption unattached this way.
Fulmination 1R
Instant
Destroy target Contraption and all Contraptions attached to it.
Thoughts?
Decks:GU Evolver, W Modern Knights
Apprentice of Spell Manipulation
Archester: Frontier of Steam
Red Wire 2
Artifact - Component
If assembled Contraption would be disassembled, instead sacrifice ~.
Assemble (:1mana:: Attach this to target non-Component artifact you control. That artifact is a Contraption in addition to its other types
^---- Yes I know there aren't red wires in Steampunk get over it.
If everyone likes this we should be able to move forward. I think this is an great and elegant design. Great Job everybody. :thumbsup::thumbsup:
Sig by Rivenor
Cube. The best way to play Magic. PERIOD. Come over and check it out. Also, check out my Peasant Split Card Cube.
The World of Pokemon RPG has been rebooted. Come over and check it out.
Set Creation Projects: Archester: Frontier of Steam Come over and check out our AWESOME Steampunk set.
(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)
I agree! This looks great! :thumbsup::thumbsup: (I do think it should still have "Assemble only as a sorcery" though. If picking up a sword is sorcery speed, assembling a contraption definitely should be. Plus, as someone stated, being that they are similar to equipment, that similarity will be used when learning it, so there should be a parallel there.)
I think our next step should be to update and (re)organize all the info in the OP.
I feel like we're being limited by the English language -- if only there were some word that fits the spirit of both "component" and "contraption."
Well let's wait for MOON-E/Ninja Caterpie/whoever. It's not like we've had a design that everyone's agreed on yet
I'm no linguist, but I should think that the major languages would have no problem with words to differentiate between "part" and "whole".
Well, there was an implied "if everyone agrees" there.
Additionally, we should maybe think up a basic idea of how we want the block to evolve while we update it.
Sig by Rivenor
Cube. The best way to play Magic. PERIOD. Come over and check it out. Also, check out my Peasant Split Card Cube.
The World of Pokemon RPG has been rebooted. Come over and check it out.
Set Creation Projects: Archester: Frontier of Steam Come over and check out our AWESOME Steampunk set.
(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)
Once upon a time, in my first set design, I had an ability called imbue.
Imbue [cost] (Target permanent that shares a card type with this card gains all abilities of this card until end of turn)
The set was pretty crappy, but I always thought this mechanic had potential. I never realized it, but maybe you guys could modify it a bit for your needs and see what can be done with it. I know it lacks a wee bit of the 'putting together the grand machine' aspect of an attaching version, and there could potentially be some memory issues but I think it helps a bit with all the complexity involved in combining artifacts while still giving you the desired effect - assembling abilities.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
I vote for this as the final wording:
Assemble (Cost) (Attach to target non-component artifact. That artifact is a contraption in addition to its other types. Assemble only as a sorcery.)
• Sorcery Speed
• Becomes a Contraption
• Works on creatures
I think we should now try to make a mechanic (doesn't have to be an actual mechanic, could just be a theme) for each faction (w/ splinter). In Innistrad design, WotC made sure there were interesting strategies for every color pair, even the ones that didn't match with the tribal themes. Contraptions work for (W/U)R, and Spellslinging works for (B/R)W, what about the rest? (Also, for the colorless matters, what about the name Monochrome?)
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
Comic Book Set
Archester: Frontier of Steam (A steampunk set!)
A Good Place to Start Designing
I recommend everyone looking at mockups of Components in MSE as we talk about this. The absolutely full reminder text would be:
(Attach this to target artifact you control. That artifact is a Contraption in addition to its other types. Assemble only as a sorcery. This card enters the battlefield unattached and stays on the battlefield if the artifact leaves.)
It's easy to say we can forget about that last sentence, but Darksteel Garrison included it even after Equipment abandoned it with the release of Fifth Dawn. That being said, I think it's more than reasonable to get rid of it. So instead we have:
(Attach this to target artifact you control. That artifact is a Contraption in addition to its other types. Assemble only as a sorcery.)
Which is shorter, but still takes up a lot of card space. Can we just say that we won't print reminder text on any of the rare/mythic Components to allow for more complex effects or flavor text? There's precedent for that.
EDIT: I just noticed that everyone is writing "non-Component." Why is that...? Is there an issue with attaching Components to other Components, especially considering we can already attach Components to Equipment?