Ok, I think we're on to something, look at this...
Clockwork Drake Artifact Creature - Clockwork Drake [Common]
Flying
Clockwork 3 (This creature enters the battlefield with three +1/+1 counters on it. Whenever this creature attacks or blocks, remove a +1/+1 counter from it at end of combat.) 0/0
^---- That looks pretty awesome, if I do say so myself.
Yeah, this looks way less cluttered than the old ones and doesn't lose any of the flavor. In fact, it probably gains some. Mmmm!
So does every creature that has a name that is its creature types, but, with the new type (and keyword, to a lesser extent), we've enabled ourselves to design clockwork creatures that don't have to be named "Clockwork Whatever" to get the clockworkness across, so it won't be something that has to appear on all of them.
Plus, it looks way less silly on an actual card frame.
I don't really like clockwork being a creature type. "Clockwork" is being used as an adjective, not a noun. Basically, what I'm saying is that "Clockwork" is not a Race.
Clockwork as a keyword might be interesting, especially on creatures that aren't entirely made of counters, but I don't think we need to make it a creature type just to include a lord.
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.
I don't really like clockwork being a creature type. "Clockwork" is being used as an adjective, not a noun. Basically, what I'm saying is that "Clockwork" is not a Race.
Clockwork as a keyword might be interesting, especially on creatures that aren't entirely made of counters, but I don't think we need to make it a creature type just to include a lord.
Fair enough, even if we don't use "Clockwork" as a type (I'll concede you have a good point), it's still possible to have a "Clockwork Lord" by referencing the keyword. For example Cavalry Master is a "Flanking Lord".
I don't really like clockwork being a creature type. "Clockwork" is being used as an adjective, not a noun. Basically, what I'm saying is that "Clockwork" is not a Race.
It's not supposed to a race though, it's used more like a class, except it goes before the race. Similar to how zombie is used on Llanowar Dead.
Since we all liked the ultimately doomed "chaining" effect that was played around with for Contraptions, what if we reworked it into another type that fits the "chaining" effect much better--Assembly-Workers! We've already decided to include them and the only current examples of them do one thing--tap to give other Assembly-Workers bonuses.
Lining all your Assembly-Workers up in a... wait for it... assembly line(!), tapping them to give bonuses to the next one down, and ending up with a super creature at the end of the line seems too awesome to pass up.
What are some ways we could accomplish this? Perhaps it's best just have them all give some form of bonus and just target one Assembly-Worker with all of them? Thoughts?
Since we all liked the ultimately doomed "chaining" effect that was played around with for Contraptions, what if we reworked it into another type that fits the "chaining" effect much better--Assembly-Workers! We've already decided to include them and the only current examples of them do one thing--tap to give other Assembly-Workers bonuses.
Lining all your Assembly-Workers up in a... wait for it... assembly line(!), tapping them to give bonuses to the next one down, and ending up with a super creature at the end of the line seems too awesome to pass up.
What are some ways we could accomplish this? Perhaps it's best just have them all give some form of bonus and just target one Assembly-Worker with all of them? Thoughts?
:confused2:Isn't that what Assembly-Worker does already? Basically all your Assembly-Workers help each other to get bigger. :shrug:IDK:shrug: Maybe I just misunderstood you.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
Fair enough, even if we don't use "Clockwork" as a type (I'll concede you have a good point), it's still possible to have a "Clockwork Lord" by referencing the keyword. For example Cavalry Master is a "Flanking Lord".
^^^This^^^
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.
The way Assembly-Worker works right now, it is better to point it at one dude.
Pointing it down the chain just ends with you having a bunch of tapped 3/3s.
I guess the thing is, what's the difference? If you point each one down the chain, don't you just end up with a giant creature anyway? I completely understand where you're coming from, but how do you make the "chain" different from how they would work now?
EDIT: Your suggestion does make a bigger creature, but that's still not fundamentally different from how they would work anyway.
Also, are we making assembly workers a big enough "tribe" to include a ton of them. I feel like just including a few of them at various sizes is enough to feed the need for assembly workers.
BRAINBLAST: Maybe assembly workers should assemble things?
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.
:confused2:Isn't that what Assembly-Worker does already? Basically all your Assembly-Workers help each other to get bigger. :shrug:IDK:shrug: Maybe I just misunderstood you.
Yeah, that's basically what that last line was getting at. I guess I just wanted to point out that we could use them to show off our "chaining" idea.
That's a supertype (like basic). Completely different story.
The fact that they made an adjective out of a noun is what I was citing. super/sub-type wasn't important there.
Plus, I just looked it up, and clockwork is actually a noun and not an adjective at all.
^^^This^^^
I just think it's weird to not be able to include the old clockworks in any rules text references and a creature type doesn't look or feel weird in any way (except when a card is typed up in text form, as Ninja Caterpie pointed out).
Referring to creatures with a keyword seems like a "work around" that isn't at all necessary here.
Just reprint Assembly worker, make a new rare factory that pumps them out and print a few that give each other abilities like first strike and haste and you have yourselves a small limited archetype.
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
Just reprint Assembly worker, make a new rare factory that pumps them out and print a few that give each other abilities like first strike and haste and you have yourselves a small limited archetype.
This is exactly how I envisioned them. Factory and all.
Just reprint Assembly worker, make a new rare factory that pumps them out and print a few that give each other abilities like first strike and haste and you have yourselves a small limited archetype.
I like this, simply and effective. By the way did anyone else realize Assembly-Worker is an Uncommon? That surprised me. How does everyone feel about it being moved to Common? Then we can have Assembly-Worker at Common, a couple of Uncommon varients and a Rare factory. That was a great idea Ninja.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
The fact that they made an adjective out of a noun is what I was citing. super/sub-type wasn't important there.
Plus, I just looked it up, and clockwork is actually a noun and not an adjective at all.
You misunderstand me...
For names like "Clockwork Hydra", 'clockwork' is an adjective that's describing the hydra. The Hydra is made of clockwork. That's how that name works.
Now, creature types work by listing the race, then the class. In Hydra's case, it's a hydra, so that's its race. Sometimes you have two races (Llanowar Dead), and sometimes two clases (Emberstrike Duo), but it's always listed in that order.
If you made Hydra's type "Clockwork Hydra", you'd be saying that "Clockwork" is a race, which I disagree with. The creature is not a "clockwork", it's made of clockwork. It's the same reason why Gold Myr's type is not "Gold Myr", it's just "Myr"
As for Snow, again that's a super type, which means it works entirely differently from creature types. When I said clockwork was an adjective, I meant that it was used as an adjective in the creature name, and that it shouldn't then become a noun in the creature type.
I would much prefer the creature type "Hydra Clock", but that would be just as, if not more silly than "Clockwork Hydra"
I just think it's weird to not be able to include the old clockworks in any rules text references and a creature type doesn't look or feel weird in any way (except when a card is typed up in text form, as Ninja Caterpie pointed out).
Referring to creatures with a keyword seems like a "work around" that isn't at all necessary here.
I think it does feel weird. To me, again, it'd be like putting "gold" in the creature type of "Gold Myr". The creature is not a clockwork, it's made of clockwork. It just doesn't seem to fit with how creature types work.
I would much rather have our 1 potential lord not work with the 4 clockwork cards that don't use +1/+1 counters.
Just reprint Assembly worker, make a new rare factory that pumps them out and print a few that give each other abilities like first strike and haste and you have yourselves a small limited archetype.
This please. Except I think each one should give +1/+1 in addition to their random ability, just so they can all have a common theme.
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.
I would much rather have our 1 potential lord not work with the 4 clockwork cards that don't use +1/+1 counters.
For what its worth I'll bet a good deal of money that Wotc would change the Pre-Mirrodin Clockwork creatures to the new +1/+1 counter format if they could and all the "Modern" Clockwork creatures can have the new "Clockwork N" keyword.
Personally, I'm willing to give up the "Clockwork Class" since we already have the keyword and a passible work-around.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
For names like "Clockwork Hydra", 'clockwork' is an adjective that's describing the hydra. The Hydra is made of clockwork. That's how that name works.
No, I understand that it's used as an adjective in the names, I was just pointing out that it actually isn't an adjective in the English language at all (which I didn't even know).
I am not that against not having it be a creature type (especially when you point out that there are only 4 that wouldn't get our keyword--I hadn't looked it up yet), but can we at least make them Constructs, since that's what they basically are, as you pointed out?
Clockwork Drake4
Artifact Creature - Drake Construct
Flying
Clockwork 3 (This creature enters the battlefield with three +1/+1 counters on it. Whenever this creature attacks or blocks, remove a +1/+1 counter from it at end of combat.)
0/0
^ This, a clockwork drake, is a construct of a drake. Which brings me to another idea I had--we could make some constructs that are the only examples of certain creatures left on the plane, such as the clockwork drake. (Id est, the pollution and influence of industry and technology has forced all the plane's drakes into extinction and now the only remaining examples are those constructed by artificers.)
By the way did anyone else realize Assembly-Worker is an Uncommon? That surprised me. How does everyone feel about it being moved to Common? Then we can have Assembly-Worker at Common, a couple of Uncommon variants and a Rare factory.
1000x yes! I thought it was silly that it wasn't a common in Time Spiral, given the nature of its ability.
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.
Corpse Inventor2BB
Creature - Human Artificer (R)
Pay XX life, BB, t: Exile target creature card with power X from your graveyard. Put a 0/0 black Zombie Construct artifact creature token with Clockwork X onto the battlefield.
1/2
Corpse Inventor2BB
Creature - Human Artificer (R)
Pay XX life, BB, t: Exile target creature card with power X from your graveyard. Put a 0/0 black Zombie Construct artifact creature token with Clockwork X onto the battlefield.
1/2
This is our flagship black industry card. I'm pushing this one for inclusion in the final set now. Epic Win.
Corpse Inventor2BB
Creature - Human Artificer (R)
Pay XX life, BB, t: Exile target creature card with power X from your graveyard. Put a 0/0 black Zombie Construct artifact creature token with Clockwork X onto the battlefield.
1/2
Feels too complex, and somewhat underpowered. Clockwork X actually makes a creature much, much worse than just a random x/x, but it seems like you're paying a lot for it. Double life payment, double black, and exiling a creature with a high power? Seems like too much work for an lackluster ability on a 4 drop.
What about this?:
Expansionist Overseer1B
Creature - Human Artificier (R) XB,T, Sacrifice a land: Put a 0/0 colorless Construct artifact creature token with Clockwork X onto the battlefield. Spend only colorless mana on X.
1/2 When faced with destructive expanding forces, Natives ready to fight for their land are often startled to find their lands ready to fight back.
This makes it much more powerful and brings it closer to the set's themes.
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.
Assembly-Worker is an uncommon because it's only a clever nod to Mishra's Factory, it was never meant to actually become a tribe.
But it's such an open card that we might as well given the nature of our set.
MOON-E's card is good, but colourless mana is a harsh cost and you'll find that, probably even in this set, it'll be hard to make more than a beetle. I reckon it'd be fine without the land saccing, honestly, with that restriction.
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
But it's such an open card that we might as well given the nature of our set.
MOON-E's card is good, but colourless mana is a harsh cost and you'll find that, probably even in this set, it'll be hard to make more than a beetle. I reckon it'd be fine without the land saccing, honestly, with that restriction.
I agree; with the colorless only restriction, sacrificing a land is unnecessary. Other than that, I think it's a great card!
---
Here's an update for the OP (cut & paste variety, for your convenience ;)):
Colorless matters.
:sym2w::sym2u::sym2b::sym2r::sym2g:
Achromic—If only colorless mana was spent to [cast ~ or activate this ability], [positive effect]."
"If [W/////colored mana] was spent to [cast ~ or activate this ability], [effect]."
"Spend only colorless mana to [cast ~ or activate this ability]."
Clockwork Creatures
Clockwork N (This creature enters the battlefield with N +1/+1 counters on it. Whenever this creature attacks or blocks, remove a +1/+1 counter from it at end of combat.)
The pollution and influence of industry and technology has forced some of the plane's creatures into extinction and now the only remaining examples are those constructed by artificers.
All previous Clockwork creatures with be updated to be Constructs and have the Clockwork keyword, where possible.
Yeah, this looks way less cluttered than the old ones and doesn't lose any of the flavor. In fact, it probably gains some. Mmmm!
This looks a bit silly though.
You got 99 attackers but I'm blocking with 1.
The Winner is Judge | 7
This Winner is Also Judge | 6
Club Flamingo | Lots
So does every creature that has a name that is its creature types, but, with the new type (and keyword, to a lesser extent), we've enabled ourselves to design clockwork creatures that don't have to be named "Clockwork Whatever" to get the clockworkness across, so it won't be something that has to appear on all of them.
Plus, it looks way less silly on an actual card frame.
Clockwork as a keyword might be interesting, especially on creatures that aren't entirely made of counters, but I don't think we need to make it a creature type just to include a lord.
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
Fair enough, even if we don't use "Clockwork" as a type (I'll concede you have a good point), it's still possible to have a "Clockwork Lord" by referencing the keyword. For example Cavalry Master is a "Flanking Lord".
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)
It's not supposed to a race though, it's used more like a class, except it goes before the race. Similar to how zombie is used on Llanowar Dead.
Furthermore, see //gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?action=advanced&type=+[%22Snow%22">"]Snow. Snow has never been an adjective, yet that doesn't stop them from making it one.
---
Ooh! Ooh! Ooh! I have an idea!
Since we all liked the ultimately doomed "chaining" effect that was played around with for Contraptions, what if we reworked it into another type that fits the "chaining" effect much better--Assembly-Workers! We've already decided to include them and the only current examples of them do one thing--tap to give other Assembly-Workers bonuses.
Lining all your Assembly-Workers up in a... wait for it... assembly line(!), tapping them to give bonuses to the next one down, and ending up with a super creature at the end of the line seems too awesome to pass up.
What are some ways we could accomplish this? Perhaps it's best just have them all give some form of bonus and just target one Assembly-Worker with all of them? Thoughts?
:confused2:Isn't that what Assembly-Worker does already? Basically all your Assembly-Workers help each other to get bigger. :shrug:IDK:shrug: Maybe I just misunderstood you.
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)
That still doesn't have a class before a race because a zombie is a race, it just has two races.
That's a supertype (like basic). Completely different story.
^^^This^^^
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
Pointing it down the chain just ends with you having a bunch of tapped 3/3s.
We'll have to do something like...
Assembly-Worker 2.0 3
Artifact Creature - Assembly-Worker
T: Target Assembly-Worker creature gets +X/+X, where X is Assembly-Worker's power.
1/1
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 guess the thing is, what's the difference? If you point each one down the chain, don't you just end up with a giant creature anyway? I completely understand where you're coming from, but how do you make the "chain" different from how they would work now?
EDIT: Your suggestion does make a bigger creature, but that's still not fundamentally different from how they would work anyway.
Also, are we making assembly workers a big enough "tribe" to include a ton of them. I feel like just including a few of them at various sizes is enough to feed the need for assembly workers.
BRAINBLAST: Maybe assembly workers should assemble things?
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
Yeah, that's basically what that last line was getting at. I guess I just wanted to point out that we could use them to show off our "chaining" idea.
I had thought of this, but as I just stated, that last line was basically me realizing that the way they work now is probably much more elegant.
The fact that they made an adjective out of a noun is what I was citing. super/sub-type wasn't important there.
Plus, I just looked it up, and clockwork is actually a noun and not an adjective at all.
I just think it's weird to not be able to include the old clockworks in any rules text references and a creature type doesn't look or feel weird in any way (except when a card is typed up in text form, as Ninja Caterpie pointed out).
Referring to creatures with a keyword seems like a "work around" that isn't at all necessary here.
You got 99 attackers but I'm blocking with 1.
The Winner is Judge | 7
This Winner is Also Judge | 6
Club Flamingo | Lots
This is exactly how I envisioned them. Factory and all.
I like this, simply and effective. By the way did anyone else realize Assembly-Worker is an Uncommon? That surprised me. How does everyone feel about it being moved to Common? Then we can have Assembly-Worker at Common, a couple of Uncommon varients and a Rare factory. That was a great idea Ninja.
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)
You misunderstand me...
For names like "Clockwork Hydra", 'clockwork' is an adjective that's describing the hydra. The Hydra is made of clockwork. That's how that name works.
Now, creature types work by listing the race, then the class. In Hydra's case, it's a hydra, so that's its race. Sometimes you have two races (Llanowar Dead), and sometimes two clases (Emberstrike Duo), but it's always listed in that order.
If you made Hydra's type "Clockwork Hydra", you'd be saying that "Clockwork" is a race, which I disagree with. The creature is not a "clockwork", it's made of clockwork. It's the same reason why Gold Myr's type is not "Gold Myr", it's just "Myr"
As for Snow, again that's a super type, which means it works entirely differently from creature types. When I said clockwork was an adjective, I meant that it was used as an adjective in the creature name, and that it shouldn't then become a noun in the creature type.
I would much prefer the creature type "Hydra Clock", but that would be just as, if not more silly than "Clockwork Hydra"
I think it does feel weird. To me, again, it'd be like putting "gold" in the creature type of "Gold Myr". The creature is not a clockwork, it's made of clockwork. It just doesn't seem to fit with how creature types work.
I would much rather have our 1 potential lord not work with the 4 clockwork cards that don't use +1/+1 counters.
This please. Except I think each one should give +1/+1 in addition to their random ability, just so they can all have a common theme.
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
For what its worth I'll bet a good deal of money that Wotc would change the Pre-Mirrodin Clockwork creatures to the new +1/+1 counter format if they could and all the "Modern" Clockwork creatures can have the new "Clockwork N" keyword.
Personally, I'm willing to give up the "Clockwork Class" since we already have the keyword and a passible work-around.
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)
No, I understand that it's used as an adjective in the names, I was just pointing out that it actually isn't an adjective in the English language at all (which I didn't even know).
I am not that against not having it be a creature type (especially when you point out that there are only 4 that wouldn't get our keyword--I hadn't looked it up yet), but can we at least make them Constructs, since that's what they basically are, as you pointed out?
Clockwork Drake 4
Artifact Creature - Drake Construct
Flying
Clockwork 3 (This creature enters the battlefield with three +1/+1 counters on it. Whenever this creature attacks or blocks, remove a +1/+1 counter from it at end of combat.)
0/0
^ This, a clockwork drake, is a construct of a drake. Which brings me to another idea I had--we could make some constructs that are the only examples of certain creatures left on the plane, such as the clockwork drake. (Id est, the pollution and influence of industry and technology has forced all the plane's drakes into extinction and now the only remaining examples are those constructed by artificers.)
1000x yes! I thought it was silly that it wasn't a common in Time Spiral, given the nature of its ability.
Assembly-Worker is an uncommon because it's only a clever nod to Mishra's Factory, it was never meant to actually become a tribe.
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 agree :thumbsup::thumbsup:. Construct Clockwork Creatures FTW <-- I love Alliteration!
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)
Creature - Human Artificer (R)
Pay XX life, BB, t: Exile target creature card with power X from your graveyard. Put a 0/0 black Zombie Construct artifact creature token with Clockwork X onto the battlefield.
1/2
This is our flagship black industry card. I'm pushing this one for inclusion in the final set now. Epic Win.
Decks:GU Evolver, W Modern Knights
Apprentice of Spell Manipulation
Archester: Frontier of Steam
Feels too complex, and somewhat underpowered. Clockwork X actually makes a creature much, much worse than just a random x/x, but it seems like you're paying a lot for it. Double life payment, double black, and exiling a creature with a high power? Seems like too much work for an lackluster ability on a 4 drop.
What about this?:
Expansionist Overseer 1B
Creature - Human Artificier (R)
XB,T, Sacrifice a land: Put a 0/0 colorless Construct artifact creature token with Clockwork X onto the battlefield. Spend only colorless mana on X.
1/2
When faced with destructive expanding forces, Natives ready to fight for their land are often startled to find their lands ready to fight back.
This makes it much more powerful and brings it closer to the set's themes.
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
But it's such an open card that we might as well given the nature of our set.
MOON-E's card is good, but colourless mana is a harsh cost and you'll find that, probably even in this set, it'll be hard to make more than a beetle. I reckon it'd be fine without the land saccing, honestly, with that restriction.
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 agree; with the colorless only restriction, sacrificing a land is unnecessary. Other than that, I think it's a great card!
---
Here's an update for the OP (cut & paste variety, for your convenience ;)):