So I'm building a set, and here's some scribbles I've got on it,
Conquest of Amalia, Build your Kingdom
Themes:
- The primary feeling this set should be giving is that you are building a Kingdom from the ground, maybe incorporating RTS elements of expansion, tech trees, resource/unit management in some way. Slow, battlecruiser magic, but instead of it being tall (Eldrazi), it would be wide (more DGM-like with mana-sinks).
- Battles should evoke military warfare, sieges and tactics.
- Land theme (Expanding your territory, conquering/destroying other territories, and building on the land itself)
- Some tribal themes, (on the level of innistrad tribal)
- Defender subtheme (Walls)
My mechanics are sparing at the moment, but here are the two I think I'm set on.
Fortifications - There will be a large amount of Fortifications and cards devoted to interacting with them. Numbers wise they will appear around as frequently as equipment did in their debut block Mirrodin, so there will be about 20 of them total. All colors will interact with them in some regard, but the primary colors for them will be W/r.
I know some doubt Fortifications ability to be an impactful/interesting mechanic, but I think the design space for it exists.
Dominion - As long as you control more lands than an opponent, X.
This ability is supposed to underscore the importance of resource gathering/building. You have the advantage if you have more territory than your opponent. All colors have the ability to interact with Dominion, but there is an emphasis once again on G/W/R. Different Dominion strategies for each color are emphasized in limited.
R/B: Land Destruction/Prevention
W: Ramp if behind (land tax/tithe effects)
G: Ramp/Recursion
U: Tempo/Bounce
While some may be perturbed that land destruction could be a theme in a limited set, it's less about screwing people out of their early turns, and more about making land destruction in limited a strategic and valuable tool in the late game, by helping turn off an opponents Dominion bonus or enabling your own.
Amalian Brigade 3G
Creature - Elf Soldier
Trample Dominion - Amalian Brigade gets +2/+2 as long as you control more lands than an opponent.
Aside from those two, I'm having problems establishing a mechanical identity for the rest of the color pairs.
I was thinking of maybe some combat mechanic that emphasizes siege combat/armies battling, maybe a soulbond-esque mechanic, or a reflavored bushido/flanking.
I also very much need a Blue mechanic. A thought I had was using Cycling as a way to symbolize both Mercantilism and Trade in U/W, Spellcraft U/R, and Dark Magic in U/B.
Additionally I was thinking of adding another resource mechanic, maybe like Gold counters/tokens or the like so that certain colors have a mechanical niche.
Flavor and Archetypes:
GW: Elves, Humans - Dominion (Land Ramp),
RW: Dwarves - Fortifications/Walls/Tribal
UG: Druids/Shamans - Flash, Land Animation
RB: Orcs - Reverse Dominion (Land Destruction)/Steal and Sac/Tribal
GB: (No racial identity, I was thinking Insect/Fungus) - Land Sac/Recursion
UW: No identity as of yet. (Potentially: Merchants/Advisors - Return to hand effects, cycling abuse.)
UB: No identity as of yet. (Potentially: Rogues/Wizards/Horrors - Cycling/Reanimation)
BW: No identity as of yet. (Potentially: Mercenaries - Gold manipulation or Stax/Hatebears of some variety.
GR: No identity as of yet.
UR: No identity as of yet.
Sorry for the jumbled train of thought, I'll have to look back at this post and clean it up later.
Intrestingly i thought of Dominion for a land set as well. I did end up adjusting it to work as long you controled the most or where tied for the most. I reasoned that another group with the same amount of lands would be as powerful as you and that you'd both, or more, would still be more powerful than those with less. Essentially anyone with equal land was a rival, while those with less only became a threat if they got more.
It leads to good flavor and gameplay since everyone is still trying to position themselves to get to Dominion,but doing so doesn't put an automatic target on your head for having it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOut of the ground,I rise to grace...W BAfter the lights go out on you, after your worthless life is through. I will remember how you scream...B
I don't like Dominion. Mechanics that care about your opponent tend to be bad as a result. If you want a 'play lots of lands mechanic' use landfall or maybe make it references only you (i.e. If you control N or more lands...).
About land destruction, how is it less about screwing over opponents? What makes viable? Consider that mana screw is one of the biggest complaints players have and land destruction encourages it no matter what.
A set where lands matter is definitely one of the places where Fortifactions could appear IRL and of course would work here in the same way.
Use five tribes that matter, otherwise it becomes too obstructive and consuming, sticking with tribes in two-colours is good (helps things be less linear).
Suggestions
Some mechanics that could return: Raid, Exalted, Bloodthist, Monstrosity, aforementioned Landfall, Entwine.
Some possible spaces for new mechanics: rewarding combat (like Raid), interacting with combat (Exalted), playing well with defenders, matching the flavour of sieges, matching the flavour of kingdoms
New mechanic example:
(Kingdom flavour mechanic) Reign- As long as you control three or more tokens, (effect)
e.g. Authoritative Execution ( )
Instant (U)
Destroy target attacking or blocking creature. Reign- As long as you control three or more tokens, you gain life equal to that creature's power.
This is a (wordy) idea I've had for awhile on building structures. You invest your creatures' time to get a more powerful ability.
Golem Factory4
Artifact Build - Tap an untapped creature you control: Put a charge counter on ~. Activate this ability only on your turn. 8, T: Put a 4/4 Golem Artifact Creature onto the battlefield. This ability costs 1 less to activate for each charge counter on ~.
Intrestingly i thought of Dominion for a land set as well. I did end up adjusting it to work as long you controled the most or where tied for the most. I reasoned that another group with the same amount of lands would be as powerful as you and that youd both, or more, would still be more powerful than those with less. Essentially anyone with equal land was a rival, while those with less only became a threat if they got more.
It leads to good flavor and gameplay since everyone is still trying to position themselves to get to Dominion,but doing so doesnt put an automatic target on your head for having it.
I very much agree with this and had been debating the change, but now I think its the right move, thanks!
I dont like Dominion. Mechanics that care about your opponent tend to be bad as a result. If you want a play lots of lands mechanic use landfall or maybe make it references only you (i.e. If you control N or more lands...).
About land destruction, how is it less about screwing over opponents? What makes viable? Consider that mana screw is one of the biggest complaints players have and land destruction encourages it no matter what.
A set where lands matter is definitely one of the places where Fortifactions could appear IRL and of course would work here in the same way.
Use five tribes that matter, otherwise it becomes too obstructive and consuming, sticking with tribes in two-colours is good (helps things be less linear).
Now to be honest with you I was and probably still of the same mind set as you are. As a general rule mechanics that rely on your opponent arent the most well received, and are very finicky to begin with, but I feel this mechanic warrants play testing for a few reasons.
1. While it does care about your opponent, its something you and your opponent are ideally both working for. Much like developing your board state is important in limited, developing your land state will be important, which also increases the relevance of other land-based things you do.
2. Lands are generally difficult to interact with from an opponents standpoint, and it is mostly a proactive battle against each other to establish your own land base. It also has the benefit of not too much instant speed blowout. This could both mechanically and flavor-wise lead to some interesting cards that impact this game play, and also further the whole Conquest and battle motif Im trying to explore.
3. It makes you care about your land state all throughout the game.
As for your point about land destruction, Wizards continues to print land destruction at 4-6 mana, sometimes with extra card advantage stapled onto it at common. Look at commons from Zendikar and Worldwake for example. I wouldnt be changing this model. I would be keeping it exactly the same in fact. At the point in game where your casting 4-6 mana land destruction spells, your board state should have developed and it should hardly be neutering your ability to cast spells, which is why they are generally horrid to play in limited, as if you personally play that land destruction spell youre generally spending a whole turns worth of mana to do nothing to the board state for very minor if any gains. Dominion would just make these spells more of an actual consideration in draft/deckbuilding which in my mind adds depth to limited not seen thus far.
All of this of course is conjecture, but playtesting I think should fix that.
Moving on to the combat mechanics, one of those might be a good fit, but I think the design space for most of them has been exhausted, especially at common (namely raid/bloodthirst), but I could see exalted working out, I really like its flavor in W/B, but it might not want warrant the glut that is becoming white right now (dominion, and fortifications mattering most in those colors thus far). This has definitely given me something to think about! Thank you.
As for Reign, Im not too keen on it, for a couple reasons. Creature tokens are flavorfully not supposed to be any different from regular creatures, and mechanically is very a parasitic mechanic in draft in the sense that you need both token producers and then cards with Reign to have a good deck, one without the other is never a really winning strategy (unless you overpower the tokens).
There's a lot I like about Dominion (even though it can be hard to come back from being behind on lands), but it has a fundamental flaw that makes it unusable: whoever goes first gets a huge and unfair advantage. In normal games where both players play a land every turn and don't play into any land/ramp themes, whoever goes first would have Dominion active on their turn and the second would never have it.
About Dominion, maybe.
About LD, having a bunch of LD cards is different from a theme. With just three or four, it's not a common occurrence, but when it starts getting to seven or eight, it starts to be problematic. Sure, when they are more expensive it's less worrying, but it's still going to screw people over. The most obvious and most common scenario where this would matter is in a top-deck scenario, where players have little cards. They won't need a lot of mana, but they need the colours to play whatever they can. It is ultimately colour screw that is most problematic for LD rather than simple land screw. A very minor LD theme (i.e. 'this set has more LD than usual to go with it's themes'), go ahead that's a good idea, but as soon it becomes a bigger theme, ('this set has a significant theme which is all about LD'), it's a bad idea.
Raid and Bloodthirst's design space at common is not exhausted.
Reign was just an 'off the top of my head' example to demonstrate. The reason I put 'tokens' as opposed to 'creature tokens' was to allow more room for support to reduce such problems. Also, token decks don't need a bunch of mechanic cards to be good. See Khans block tokens archetype. Not that I am saying you should use it though.
There's a lot I like about Dominion (even though it can be hard to come back from being behind on lands), but it has a fundamental flaw that makes it unusable: whoever goes first gets a huge and unfair advantage. In normal games where both players play a land every turn and don't play into any land/ramp themes, whoever goes first would have Dominion active on their turn and the second would never have it.
It's my intent to make all Dominion spells at least 4+ CMC. That way the beginning of the game is devoted to developing your land state, or interacting with your opponent's land state, which all colors will be able to do in some function or another. I want to make Dominion spells much more impactful/splashy, and have the game revolve around interacting with land count. Turn 4 is roughly when the lands that you naturally had in your hand at the beginning of the game go away for both players, and when landbases start to even out.
Also it stands to say that white will be given "Tithe" effects like Knight of the White Orchid, that actually might make it beneficial to play second, as your accrue no land disadvantage from going second, and benefit from the extra draw, which I hope makes playing first or second a more difficult choice than it is normally.
I think it can work out.
@DJK3654 Yeah I think we agree on the LD totals, I was aiming for maybe around 4-5 effects spread over Commmon-Uncommon.
Now that I think about it you might be right about the mechanics, Raid might be a flavor homerun now that I think about it, and might be just what I need to encourage attacking in what looks to be a very defensive limited format.
Talking about tech-trees and empires makes me think of the Structure cards that Wizards were designing for the original Ravnica block, before they were ultimately scrapped from the set.
I see them as working like a cross between Levelers and Planeswalkers.
Dazzling Ramparts2W
Structure {R}
Build 2 (2: Put a structure counter on this. Build only as a sorcery.)
1-3: Creatures can't attack you or a permanent you control unless their controller pays 1 for each of those creatures.
4-5: Creatures can't attack you or a permanent you control unless their controller pays 2 for each of those creatures.
6+: Creatures can't attack you or a permanent you control unless their controller pays 3 for each of those creatures.
3
Basically, Structure would be a new permanent type. They hang around like Planeswalkers, and they'd all have an appropriately costed Build ability that increased their effect across 2-3 scaling 'tiers'. They could be attacked and damaged in the same way as planeswalkers, knocking off structure counters and when they ran out they would be destroyed.
I think something like this would work really well in your set. It really lets you build up your civilization with structures and wonders, and then lets your opponents tear them down with malice and glee. The card above is really just a super simple example off the top of my head.
So, Level-Up artifacts? That could work. Level-Up is very complex though, so I wouldn't use this without good consideration of the drawbacks.
@Jetvans.
Dominion is potentially a cool alt-win mechanic, it is quite parasitic though, so the usual sort of work-arounds would have to be employed i.e. Plenty of cards with it that can win on their own easily, plenty of cards with it that also help you win in other ways, etc.
I can't say I'm in love with that version of Dominion. It's a very insular mechanic, that doesn't play well with the rest of magic and tries to add another resource that mechanically takes away from mana and life. I think great set design should try to mesh well with other sets and be in one continuity (which is why I dislike Poison as a mechanic).
This is where I am mechanically with my set.
Lore - A variant of cycling that is like a more selective drawing from your graveyard instead of your deck. Debating on whether to remove either the nonland clause, the random clause, the lower converted mana clause, or just make it cycling again.
Conquest - A mash up of Raid + Bloodthirst, it's a mechanic I feel encourages all out attacking to get that point of combat damage in. Debating if I should remove the combat damage portion, and turn it to all damage, or just make it Raid again. I'm on the fence.
Upgrade - A mechanic based off of Monstrosity, it has a fixed +1/+1 counter value, and instead of giving a triggered ability like most monstrous abilities, will give a simple static/passive ability. Captures the feel of taking the time to upgrade different units and provides another mana sink.
It could be 'Dominion' artifact tokens. That way they can be supported by other cards while being more interactive for the opponent as well. Could be flavoured as a regal icon relevant to the world/story. I don't like emblems for the reason that they are totally uninteractive and mess with the established order of the game. Level-Up as an alt-win is a bad idea, that's too great of a change to errata and it would confuse the hell out of a lot players about why you did it. Level-Up could be used though, and a single mythic or rare card that has a level-up alt win effect would be cool. Level-Up is complex though, as I mentioned with 'Build', the level-Up artifact variant as suggested by Mangipan above.
Instead of Dominion counters, why not use Gold Tokens? They fit the flavor of the set fine, as kingdoms can use their wealth to become bigger and stronger, and the sacrifice to add one mana of any color can be used for this big "battlecruiser magic" feel you're going for...
You don't need a win the game effect from them, as the mana ramp they provide can win the game by itself.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
This signature is hilarious. You're laughing right now i bet.
MY DECKS
Standard BBBMono Black DevotionBBB
Modern WUBEsper Token/SuperfriendsWUB
Commander (EDH) WBRKaalia of the VastWBR
Conquest of Amalia, Build your Kingdom
Themes:
- The primary feeling this set should be giving is that you are building a Kingdom from the ground, maybe incorporating RTS elements of expansion, tech trees, resource/unit management in some way. Slow, battlecruiser magic, but instead of it being tall (Eldrazi), it would be wide (more DGM-like with mana-sinks).
- Battles should evoke military warfare, sieges and tactics.
- Land theme (Expanding your territory, conquering/destroying other territories, and building on the land itself)
- Some tribal themes, (on the level of innistrad tribal)
- Defender subtheme (Walls)
My mechanics are sparing at the moment, but here are the two I think I'm set on.
I know some doubt Fortifications ability to be an impactful/interesting mechanic, but I think the design space for it exists.
This ability is supposed to underscore the importance of resource gathering/building. You have the advantage if you have more territory than your opponent. All colors have the ability to interact with Dominion, but there is an emphasis once again on G/W/R. Different Dominion strategies for each color are emphasized in limited.
R/B: Land Destruction/Prevention
W: Ramp if behind (land tax/tithe effects)
G: Ramp/Recursion
U: Tempo/Bounce
While some may be perturbed that land destruction could be a theme in a limited set, it's less about screwing people out of their early turns, and more about making land destruction in limited a strategic and valuable tool in the late game, by helping turn off an opponents Dominion bonus or enabling your own.
Creature - Elf Soldier
Trample
Dominion - Amalian Brigade gets +2/+2 as long as you control more lands than an opponent.
I was thinking of maybe some combat mechanic that emphasizes siege combat/armies battling, maybe a soulbond-esque mechanic, or a reflavored bushido/flanking.
I also very much need a Blue mechanic. A thought I had was using Cycling as a way to symbolize both Mercantilism and Trade in U/W, Spellcraft U/R, and Dark Magic in U/B.
Additionally I was thinking of adding another resource mechanic, maybe like Gold counters/tokens or the like so that certain colors have a mechanical niche.
Flavor and Archetypes:
GW: Elves, Humans - Dominion (Land Ramp),
RW: Dwarves - Fortifications/Walls/Tribal
UG: Druids/Shamans - Flash, Land Animation
RB: Orcs - Reverse Dominion (Land Destruction)/Steal and Sac/Tribal
GB: (No racial identity, I was thinking Insect/Fungus) - Land Sac/Recursion
UW: No identity as of yet. (Potentially: Merchants/Advisors - Return to hand effects, cycling abuse.)
UB: No identity as of yet. (Potentially: Rogues/Wizards/Horrors - Cycling/Reanimation)
BW: No identity as of yet. (Potentially: Mercenaries - Gold manipulation or Stax/Hatebears of some variety.
GR: No identity as of yet.
UR: No identity as of yet.
Sorry for the jumbled train of thought, I'll have to look back at this post and clean it up later.
It leads to good flavor and gameplay since everyone is still trying to position themselves to get to Dominion,but doing so doesn't put an automatic target on your head for having it.
BAfter the lights go out on you, after your worthless life is through. I will remember how you scream...B
About land destruction, how is it less about screwing over opponents? What makes viable? Consider that mana screw is one of the biggest complaints players have and land destruction encourages it no matter what.
A set where lands matter is definitely one of the places where Fortifactions could appear IRL and of course would work here in the same way.
Use five tribes that matter, otherwise it becomes too obstructive and consuming, sticking with tribes in two-colours is good (helps things be less linear).
Suggestions
Some mechanics that could return: Raid, Exalted, Bloodthist, Monstrosity, aforementioned Landfall, Entwine.
Some possible spaces for new mechanics: rewarding combat (like Raid), interacting with combat (Exalted), playing well with defenders, matching the flavour of sieges, matching the flavour of kingdoms
New mechanic example:
(Kingdom flavour mechanic) Reign- As long as you control three or more tokens, (effect)
e.g.
Authoritative Execution ( )
Instant (U)
Destroy target attacking or blocking creature.
Reign- As long as you control three or more tokens, you gain life equal to that creature's power.
-
Hope some of this is useful to you.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Golem Factory 4
Artifact
Build - Tap an untapped creature you control: Put a charge counter on ~. Activate this ability only on your turn.
8, T: Put a 4/4 Golem Artifact Creature onto the battlefield. This ability costs 1 less to activate for each charge counter on ~.
I very much agree with this and had been debating the change, but now I think its the right move, thanks!
Now to be honest with you I was and probably still of the same mind set as you are. As a general rule mechanics that rely on your opponent arent the most well received, and are very finicky to begin with, but I feel this mechanic warrants play testing for a few reasons.
1. While it does care about your opponent, its something you and your opponent are ideally both working for. Much like developing your board state is important in limited, developing your land state will be important, which also increases the relevance of other land-based things you do.
2. Lands are generally difficult to interact with from an opponents standpoint, and it is mostly a proactive battle against each other to establish your own land base. It also has the benefit of not too much instant speed blowout. This could both mechanically and flavor-wise lead to some interesting cards that impact this game play, and also further the whole Conquest and battle motif Im trying to explore.
3. It makes you care about your land state all throughout the game.
As for your point about land destruction, Wizards continues to print land destruction at 4-6 mana, sometimes with extra card advantage stapled onto it at common. Look at commons from Zendikar and Worldwake for example. I wouldnt be changing this model. I would be keeping it exactly the same in fact. At the point in game where your casting 4-6 mana land destruction spells, your board state should have developed and it should hardly be neutering your ability to cast spells, which is why they are generally horrid to play in limited, as if you personally play that land destruction spell youre generally spending a whole turns worth of mana to do nothing to the board state for very minor if any gains. Dominion would just make these spells more of an actual consideration in draft/deckbuilding which in my mind adds depth to limited not seen thus far.
All of this of course is conjecture, but playtesting I think should fix that.
Moving on to the combat mechanics, one of those might be a good fit, but I think the design space for most of them has been exhausted, especially at common (namely raid/bloodthirst), but I could see exalted working out, I really like its flavor in W/B, but it might not want warrant the glut that is becoming white right now (dominion, and fortifications mattering most in those colors thus far). This has definitely given me something to think about! Thank you.
As for Reign, Im not too keen on it, for a couple reasons. Creature tokens are flavorfully not supposed to be any different from regular creatures, and mechanically is very a parasitic mechanic in draft in the sense that you need both token producers and then cards with Reign to have a good deck, one without the other is never a really winning strategy (unless you overpower the tokens).
About LD, having a bunch of LD cards is different from a theme. With just three or four, it's not a common occurrence, but when it starts getting to seven or eight, it starts to be problematic. Sure, when they are more expensive it's less worrying, but it's still going to screw people over. The most obvious and most common scenario where this would matter is in a top-deck scenario, where players have little cards. They won't need a lot of mana, but they need the colours to play whatever they can. It is ultimately colour screw that is most problematic for LD rather than simple land screw. A very minor LD theme (i.e. 'this set has more LD than usual to go with it's themes'), go ahead that's a good idea, but as soon it becomes a bigger theme, ('this set has a significant theme which is all about LD'), it's a bad idea.
Raid and Bloodthirst's design space at common is not exhausted.
Reign was just an 'off the top of my head' example to demonstrate. The reason I put 'tokens' as opposed to 'creature tokens' was to allow more room for support to reduce such problems. Also, token decks don't need a bunch of mechanic cards to be good. See Khans block tokens archetype. Not that I am saying you should use it though.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
It's my intent to make all Dominion spells at least 4+ CMC. That way the beginning of the game is devoted to developing your land state, or interacting with your opponent's land state, which all colors will be able to do in some function or another. I want to make Dominion spells much more impactful/splashy, and have the game revolve around interacting with land count. Turn 4 is roughly when the lands that you naturally had in your hand at the beginning of the game go away for both players, and when landbases start to even out.
Also it stands to say that white will be given "Tithe" effects like Knight of the White Orchid, that actually might make it beneficial to play second, as your accrue no land disadvantage from going second, and benefit from the extra draw, which I hope makes playing first or second a more difficult choice than it is normally.
I think it can work out.
@DJK3654 Yeah I think we agree on the LD totals, I was aiming for maybe around 4-5 effects spread over Commmon-Uncommon.
Now that I think about it you might be right about the mechanics, Raid might be a flavor homerun now that I think about it, and might be just what I need to encourage attacking in what looks to be a very defensive limited format.
I see them as working like a cross between Levelers and Planeswalkers.
Dazzling Ramparts 2W
Structure {R}
Build 2 (2: Put a structure counter on this. Build only as a sorcery.)
1-3: Creatures can't attack you or a permanent you control unless their controller pays 1 for each of those creatures.
4-5: Creatures can't attack you or a permanent you control unless their controller pays 2 for each of those creatures.
6+: Creatures can't attack you or a permanent you control unless their controller pays 3 for each of those creatures.
3
Basically, Structure would be a new permanent type. They hang around like Planeswalkers, and they'd all have an appropriately costed Build ability that increased their effect across 2-3 scaling 'tiers'. They could be attacked and damaged in the same way as planeswalkers, knocking off structure counters and when they ran out they would be destroyed.
I think something like this would work really well in your set. It really lets you build up your civilization with structures and wonders, and then lets your opponents tear them down with malice and glee. The card above is really just a super simple example off the top of my head.
So, Level-Up artifacts? That could work. Level-Up is very complex though, so I wouldn't use this without good consideration of the drawbacks.
@Jetvans.
Dominion is potentially a cool alt-win mechanic, it is quite parasitic though, so the usual sort of work-arounds would have to be employed i.e. Plenty of cards with it that can win on their own easily, plenty of cards with it that also help you win in other ways, etc.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
This is where I am mechanically with my set.
Lore - A variant of cycling that is like a more selective drawing from your graveyard instead of your deck. Debating on whether to remove either the nonland clause, the random clause, the lower converted mana clause, or just make it cycling again.
Conquest - A mash up of Raid + Bloodthirst, it's a mechanic I feel encourages all out attacking to get that point of combat damage in. Debating if I should remove the combat damage portion, and turn it to all damage, or just make it Raid again. I'm on the fence.
Expand - shamelessly stolen from SelesnyaNewLife's Civilization's of Vezal(http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/creativity/custom-card-creation/custom-set-creation-and/601953-cvv-civilizations-of-vezal-the-four-color-set-181), Expand is a great mechanic that does everything I want in interaction with Dominion and the rest of this sets land based mechanics.
Upgrade - A mechanic based off of Monstrosity, it has a fixed +1/+1 counter value, and instead of giving a triggered ability like most monstrous abilities, will give a simple static/passive ability. Captures the feel of taking the time to upgrade different units and provides another mana sink.
Thoughts?
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
You don't need a win the game effect from them, as the mana ramp they provide can win the game by itself.
MY DECKS
Standard
BBBMono Black DevotionBBB
Modern
WUBEsper Token/SuperfriendsWUB
Commander (EDH)
WBRKaalia of the VastWBR
Custom Set - Kolros, the Mana Distortion