I would be more interested in Incandescent if it was proposed for a second set. For the large set though, I think 5 color should be a niche theme, not a major one.
Are you planning on keeping some stuff up for a future small set? This is not relevant now, but it will be when we start playing around design space for each mechanism.
We can pair each splinter to the first color of it's opposing color pair. Just as a start for flavour and factions. This would give : (R/W) Revolutionaries (G/U) Environmentalists (W/B) Sherifs (U/R) Umm, something! (B/G) Another something! Umm, maybe scavengers? Any good industry usually has a ton of wastes usually hidden from sight.
I'm also all in favour of keeping Self land abuse for UB.
Here's some suggestions for the color pairs, just to get this going. Keep or toss, I don't care :
(W/U) Main color pair for components, just like suggested in the lore. Either have upgrade triggers, fetch components, or have more components with mono-hybrid W or U upgrade costs than other colors (U/B) Self land abuse, sacrifice lands for profit, turn my lands or creatures into steam engines, count lands in grave, reveal cards from the top of library and take an island or swamp to keep this running (B/R) The aggro keyword if one is found. Otherwise, another idea can be a ping and pain sub-theme. Block my creature? Take 1. Target my creatures? Take 1. Kill my creatures? Take 1. Oh, and take 1, just because. (R/G) Non-creature destruction and destruction triggers, to represent the group going against all that high tech stuff. Like, gets +1/+1 counters whenever a non-creature permanent gets destroyed. (G/W) The elves manage the clockwork? Then they should be closer to Windup, maybe be even the only non-artifact creatures with the ability, or the only artifact creatures with full mana cost instead of mono-hybrid mana cost. Or they could be +1/+1 counter lords like outlast in abzan. (R/W) WIP (G/U) we could have a minor plant tribal sub-theme, the same way magic origins is doing a small artifact sub-theme. Or flooding the board with plant tokens. Or both. (W/B) flicker and exile. Flicker to represent the quick-draw of cowboys (if that's how the sherif are represented?) and exile to represent law enforcement, with oblivion ring, tidehollow sculler or flickerwisp effects (U/R) Whatever the color pair is, it feels izzet enough in an izzet world that I think they should have more steam cards than other color pairs. (B/G) Small graveyard sub-theme, but with a twist! They reuse(read exile) creatures in graveyard to put zombie tokens, draw cards, give -1/-1 to other creatures or create copy tokens. Essentially spellsligners, but using creatures in (all? only your?) graveyard(s). It could also be artifacts, but artifact recycling isn’t really in BG’s color pie
EDIT : I think if Tinker is viable, the Gadget token should have a default utility, like the gold token. Listing some basic option
"Sacrifice ~ : Target creature gets +0/+1 until end of turn"
"Sacrifice ~ : The next artifact you cast this turn cost 1 less to cast"
"Sacrifice ~ : look at the top two cards of your library. You may reveal and artifact card from them and put it into your hand"
"Sacrifice four artifacts named Gadget : you may put an artifact card from your hand into the battlefield"
EDIT 2 : Got an idea for (R/G) and I added it to the spoiler
I'm not a huge fan of venture, mostly because of the G part. This is a weird set that having this make colorless would actually make it significantly better.
Woops, Venture had a major typo... it was supposed to be 1 not G. It should have read:
Venture(Whenever this creature attacks, the next spell you cast this turn costs 1 less to cast.)
Don't know about Tinker, it can't exist with other sets since you would need the synergistic cards to function, it's also much to basic when you think about it. Same for Geared and Companion, I know that Wizards started to name classic mechanics, but I don't think that's what we should do here. It's also not really much of a new design, honestly.
The colour idendity of Steam would beWUB right, since these colours are the technologically advanced on Archester.
Don't know about Tinker, it can't exist with other sets since you would need the synergistic cards to function, it's also much to basic when you think about it. Same for Geared and Companion, I know that Wizards started to name classic mechanics, but I don't think that's what we should do here. It's also not really much of a new design, honestly.
Tinker could easily be made non-parasitic. It would simply go on cards that had abilities that used artifacts, rather than ones that specifically used "gadgets". The only difference would be they can supply themselves too. Granted I'm still not sure Tinker is where we want to be, but it has potential.
The colour idendity of Steam would beWUB right, since these colours are the technologically advanced on Archester.
That's what it was originally, but that could easily be changed. For instance, in retrospect it seems kind of crazy for Red to not be a major color here: it's primary in rituals and secondary in artifacts overall. White and black, by comparison, don't have nearly as much that synergies with Steam Powered mechanically, just flavor.
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.
Tinker could easily be made non-parasitic. It would simply go on cards that had abilities that used artifacts, rather than ones that specifically used "gadgets". The only difference would be they can supply themselves too. Granted I'm still not sure Tinker is where we want to be, but it has potential.
Maybe, but that would not warrant a keyword in my opinion. Sure, there can be cards doing things with artifacts, that's a given in this set, but there is no reason to name a simple token creator mechanic. A few cards with that should be enough.
That's what it was originally, but that could easily be changed. For instance, in retrospect it seems kind of crazy for Red to not be a major color here: it's primary in rituals and secondary in artifacts overall. White and black, by comparison, don't have nearly as much that synergies with Steam Powered mechanically, just flavor.
That's sensible, but wouldn't you need to rewrite the story quite a bit for that? Steam Powered not beeing in these 3 colours would be quite weird, flavourwise.
A mechanic a few guys and I are using for a set is:
Apex — If creatures you control have total highest power on the battlefield,
It's a variant on Formidable that can ignite from the very first creature on, but also shut down more easily by your opponent.
Could also go on spells too, and it's not really bound to any colour, even though creature heavy colours have an advantage. Nonetheless, artifact creatures can have it too, of course.
I think Tinker has the potential to be a replacement for Upgrade, in that it would require having lots of synergistic cards working together to do anything.
I actually think they'd work well together and even like the thought of "Upgrading my Gadgets". If that doesn't feel and sound like building stuff, I don't know what does.
I think Tinker could incidentally serve as a replacement for the spellslinger archetype. (It would have broader applications, but that's besides the point.) Perhaps Tinker could be in all colors with each color using its Gadgets in its own color-appropriate ways.
Repurpose (Common) R
Sorcery
Destroy target artifact.
Tinker.
Brass Apothecary (Common) 1W
Creature - Human Cleric
1/3
When Brass Apothecary enters the battlefield, tinker.
Sacrifice an artifact: You gain 2 life.
Maybe, but that would not warrant a keyword in my opinion. Sure, there can be cards doing things with artifacts, that's a given in this set, but there is no reason to name a simple token creator mechanic. A few cards with that should be enough.
The point of having Tinker as a keyword is to uniformize the token generating process so that as soon as you read it, you know what is going to come out of it. And that is especially true if we add an ability to the token as the (what will be reminder in the case of Tinker) text will get pretty bulky.
We can pair each splinter to the first color of it's opposing color pair. Just as a start for flavour and factions. This would give :
(R/W) Revolutionaries
Just like Boros had the goblins, I feel like the revolutionaries should have access to a humanoid race too, giving us more design space. (If we keep some of the old flavour, going for a bit more organized version of Gremlins could be interesting)
(G/U) Environmentalists
I like the place Enviromentalist occupy in the color pie. Just like simic before, this would be the place where Plants, Mutants and other "weird" creature types could pop up. Stuff like Manaplasm would fit in here probably.
(W/B) Sherifs
I feel like here and in U/B, every Mono-hybrid cards should be powerful but have draw backs if not cast solely on steam.
(U/R) Umm, something!
If we look at the old lore, U mages were adept at displacing mana so we could have U/R have a Steam/Ritual theme, giving them the most Steampowered spells, probably those with the "perfect" effects when steam powered (à la Steam Storm)
(B/G) Another something! Umm, maybe scavengers? Any good industry usually has a ton of wastes usually hidden from sight.
Having G/B keep with the Scavenging type would be good. It fits the colors too.
I'm also all in favour of keeping Self land abuse for UB.
Here's some suggestions for the color pairs, just to get this going. Keep or toss, I don't care :
(W/U) Main color pair for components, just like suggested in the lore. Either have upgrade triggers, fetch components, or have more components with mono-hybrid W or U upgrade costs than other colors (U/B) Self land abuse, sacrifice lands for profit, turn my lands or creatures into steam engines, count lands in grave, reveal cards from the top of library and take an island or swamp to keep this running (B/R) The aggro keyword if one is found. Otherwise, another idea can be a ping and pain sub-theme. Block my creature? Take 1. Target my creatures? Take 1. Kill my creatures? Take 1. Oh, and take 1, just because. (R/G) Non-creature destruction and destruction triggers, to represent the group going against all that high tech stuff. Like, gets +1/+1 counters whenever a non-creature permanent gets destroyed. (G/W) The elves manage the clockwork? Then they should be closer to Windup, maybe be even the only non-artifact creatures with the ability, or the only artifact creatures with full mana cost instead of mono-hybrid mana cost. Or they could be +1/+1 counter lords like outlast in abzan. (R/W) WIP (G/U) we could have a minor plant tribal sub-theme, the same way magic origins is doing a small artifact sub-theme. Or flooding the board with plant tokens. Or both. (W/B) flicker and exile. Flicker to represent the quick-draw of cowboys (if that's how the sherif are represented?) and exile to represent law enforcement, with oblivion ring, tidehollow sculler or flickerwisp effects (U/R) Whatever the color pair is, it feels izzet enough in an izzet world that I think they should have more steam cards than other color pairs. (B/G) Small graveyard sub-theme, but with a twist! They reuse(read exile) creatures in graveyard to put zombie tokens, draw cards, give -1/-1 to other creatures or create copy tokens. Essentially spellsligners, but using creatures in (all? only your?) graveyard(s). It could also be artifacts, but artifact recycling isn’t really in BG’s color pie
My thoughs on your ideas:
(W/U) Tinker, Upgrade, even Equip would be a major theme for these colors. (U/B) Power at all cost is a nice theme for this. (B/R) Pain and ping sub-theme is interesting. We can also have it be a two-sided weapon, Firedrinker Satyr style. Other than that, I feel like combat tricks are probably where they would excel. (R/G) Anti-support? I like the theme. (G/W) Outlast, Windup are the mechanics of this group. If one of the group becomes a "synergistic" group kind of like tribal, I hardly vote for this. A mechanic based on voluntary spendings feels like the best place to have lots of lords. (R/W) (Nothing was written here as of the writing of this.) R/W have always been a pretty aggressive grouping. Not quite sure what would work here. (G/U) Tokens flood, large mutants, reactions to opponent casting stuff, etc. are mechanics that could fit here. (W/B) All in for flicker/exile. We will have to be careful though as these are powerful. Some combat tricks could be in here too. (U/R) As I said above, temporary ramp, mana holding (Mana Bloom style) and other such "The X is mighty" abilities fit very well here. Mana purification can also be a major subtheme. (B/G) Graveyard shenanigans, clockwork zombies describe perfectly this color combination.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Current Decks:
MODERN: RG Shamanism RG WUG Blades of the Avatars WUG
We could also leave Ping and Pain as (B/R) and give the last keyword to the (R/W) revolutionaries. Revolutionaries are all about solidarity, so keywords like battalion or a wide Exalted could be flavourful.
Solidarity (Whenever this creature attacks, another attacking creature gets +1/+1 until end of turn)
Assist (Whenever this creature attacks, you may have the next [13] damage dealt to another target attacking creature this turn be dealt to this creature instead.)
NOTE : 13 is completely arbitrary, but a real value is needed to prevent an infinite loop between 2 Assist creatures. May instead be Assist X, where X will usually be around 3-4
We could also leave Ping and Pain as (B/R) and give the last keyword to the (R/W) revolutionaries. Revolutionaries are all about solidarity, so keywords like battalion or a wide Exalted could be flavourful.
Solidarity (Whenever this creature attacks, another attacking creature gets +1/+1 until end of turn)
Assist (Whenever this creature attacks, you may have the next [13] damage dealt to another target attacking creature this turn be dealt to this creature instead.)
NOTE : 13 is completely arbitrary, but a real value is needed to prevent an infinite loop between 2 Assist creatures. May instead be Assist X, where X will usually be around 3-4
Not quite sure yet about it but since Revolutionnaries could be about surviving to the counter-raids at some points, what about having absorb as a keyword for them?
The point of having Tinker as a keyword is to uniformize the token generating process so that as soon as you read it, you know what is going to come out of it. And that is especially true if we add an ability to the token as the (what will be reminder in the case of Tinker) text will get pretty bulky.
Is that reason enough for it to become a official keyword? I like the mechanic, but even if the tokens have abilities, it's still just a token maker.
Eldrazi token makers had no keyword either and a really lengthy ability to boot, but it was no problem to understand the cards
Not quite sure yet about it but since Revolutionnaries could be about surviving to the counter-raids at some points, what about having absorb as a keyword for them?
Absorb was nice, would deserve a revival.
A on the nose survivor mechanic could be:
Persevere: At the beginning of the postcombat main phase, if XXX was dealt combat damage this turn, effect...
I'm also not sure if making a token as reminder text is worth it. I believe it would be better to just spell it out each time like the eldrazi spawn Gustostueckerl said. This would also free the Gadget generating from the activated Tap ability, so we can put it on instants or other triggers as a reward much more easily. It opens more design space.
@deritof
Absorb has a big flaw in that in 90% of situations it plays exactly as extra toughness, and isn't worth the keyword. A variation on it could work if it is more situational or if it works differently.
DavidVSGoliath (Reduce all combat damage creatures with power 4 or greater would deal to this creature to 1)
Shield X (As long as it's your turn, if a creature would deal damage to this creature, prevent X of that damage)
@Gustostueckerl
I think Deridof submitted something similar to Persevere. My answer is the same. It's doable, but imposes a very real limit on what kind of effects we can put on it since it occurs after combat, thus after all the action happened and after your creature potentially died.
DavidVsGoliath and ShieldX are nice, but possibly too strong in some cases. A David with toughness of 2 blocks every fatty and survives, and shield X works too much like Absorb, just half of it.
Maybe tackling the problem from another angle might prove more useful. Do you have some non-keyword ideas for the 10 color pairs? Any limited or flavour theme we could use?
@MOON-E
As far as returning keywords go, would Unearth be any good? It could fit into (B/G), tertiary in R, be somewhat new since green never got the ability before, and could represent the scavengers unearthing lost goods from the huge pile of engine debris. It's just another suggestion to add to the list of Outlast, Battalion, Scavenge, and Proliferate :3
That's sensible, but wouldn't you need to rewrite the story quite a bit for that? Steam Powered not beeing in these 3 colours would be quite weird, flavourwise.
Everyone on the plane uses steam power, not just the civilized folk. We might want to do some reorganization but it doesn't seem like an issue.
Apex — If creatures you control have total highest power on the battlefield,
I think this is a good mechanic but I don't see how it fits here. It does have a sense of building up, but large creatures don't seem at home in this setting.
I actually think they'd work well together and even like the thought of "Upgrading my Gadgets". If that doesn't feel and sound like building stuff, I don't know what does.
This is true. The reason we might want to scrap one or the other is a) Both have a moderately high complexity cost, and b) upgrades for the most part add bonus effects onto artifacts that do things, which might make them a bit worse when attached to artifacts that do nothing.
Repurpose (Common) R
Sorcery
Destroy target artifact.
Tinker.
Brass Apothecary (Common) 1W
Creature - Human Cleric
1/3
When Brass Apothecary enters the battlefield, tinker.
Sacrifice an artifact: You gain 2 life.
On the one hand, this being a keyword action makes a lot of sense to me. It simplifies things and allows us to put it on all sorts of different abilities. At the same time, this type of thing is usually not keyworded even when it's incredibly wordy (see: all the eldrazi spawn cardd). I also don't like the idea of putting it on spells that have no way to immediately use them.
Just like Boros had the goblins, I feel like the revolutionaries should have access to a humanoid race too, giving us more design space. (If we keep some of the old flavour, going for a bit more organized version of Gremlins could be interesting)
Humans are a humanoid race? But in case you meant non-humans, Minotaurs and Viashino have always been a part of this group.
Having G/B keep with the Scavenging type would be good. It fits the colors too.
I'm still entertaining the idea of Scavenge itself coming back. Seems like something that could easily go on artifacts.
(R/G) Non-creature destruction and destruction triggers, to represent the group going against all that high tech stuff. Like, gets +1/+1 counters whenever a non-creature permanent gets destroyed.
I would ward against this being a major theme. We tried to make this work in the original set, and IMO it didn't pan out. While it's certainly flavorful, it's a bad idea to create an archetype all about reacting to your opponent.
Solidarity (Whenever this creature attacks, another attacking creature gets +1/+1 until end of turn)
Assist (Whenever this creature attacks, you may have the next [13] damage dealt to another target attacking creature this turn be dealt to this creature instead.)
NOTE : 13 is completely arbitrary, but a real value is needed to prevent an infinite loop between 2 Assist creatures. May instead be Assist X, where X will usually be around 3-4
I like this mechanic, it seems like it has a lot of cool gameplay to it. Battlecry is another mechanic that could potentially go here. It does at least give the sense of building up, though it's not exactly my favorite.
There are a whole bunch of combat damage reduction, which are a tad strange as they don't really seem to fit the setting. Absorb is not a good choice for the reasons Grim stated.
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 point of having Tinker as a keyword is to uniformize the token generating process so that as soon as you read it, you know what is going to come out of it. And that is especially true if we add an ability to the token as the (what will be reminder in the case of Tinker) text will get pretty bulky.
Is that reason enough for it to become a official keyword? I like the mechanic, but even if the tokens have abilities, it's still just a token maker.
Populate.
Keywording Tinker also gives it's colors a unique set identity and helps players to be discrete. (You could almost always tell when a drafter drew an Eldrazi spawnwer card because she had to squint and spend 15 seconds studying it.)
So the debate is on Thinker vs Upgrade? And whether or not Thinker should be keyworded and whether or not the artifact token should have text?
My vote currently goes to Upgrade, since it doesn't bode well with me to make a card that creates an empty token. Origins did this well by having all the artifact tokens be 1/1 flyers, why are powerful and exciting by themselves. They didn't need to keyword anything to give unity to their token making. Currently, if a creature with Tinker as an ETB effect dies before you can sacrifice the Gadget (because it's a tap ability for example), then you're left with a useless token. If we find some basic use for the token, one that doesn't require a synergistic card to go with it, then I'm all for it!
Keywording Tinker also gives it's colors a unique set identity and helps players to be discrete. (You could almost always tell when a drafter drew an Eldrazi spawnwer card because she had to squint and spend 15 seconds studying it.)
To be fair, populate is far from a simple token making ability. It's pretty hard to argue populate would have been keyworded if all it said was "make a 3/3 green centaur".
Keywording Tinker also gives it's colors a unique set identity and helps players to be discrete. (You could almost always tell when a drafter drew an Eldrazi spawnwer card because she had to squint and spend 15 seconds studying it.)
So the debate is on Thinker vs Upgrade? And whether or not Thinker should be keyworded and whether or not the artifact token should have text?
My vote currently goes to Upgrade, since it doesn't bode well with me to make a card that creates an empty token. Origins did this well by having all the artifact tokens be 1/1 flyers, why are powerful and exciting by themselves. They didn't need to keyword anything to give unity to their token making. Currently, if a creature with Tinker as an ETB effect dies before you can sacrifice the Gadget (because it's a tap ability for example), then you're left with a useless token. If we find some basic use for the token, one that doesn't require a synergistic card to go with it, then I'm all for it!
I'm not sure tinker and upgrade have to be mutually exculsive, just that there are some reasons for it. FWIW, Upgrade has a similar problem: if you draw your components but no other artifacts they technically "do nothing" until you draw one, the same way a left over trinket does nothing until you draw an enabler.
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.
Maybe, except a component requires any artifact to be active, of which there will be plenty in the set, and many of which permanently stay into the battlefield by virtue of being non creature artifacts;
whereas a Gadget requires specific cards that either sacrifice, tap, count, or attach to a non-creature artifact, which is a bit more limiting. And even if Tinker is not keyworded, it can still be present in the set as a few artifact token-making cards, while the inverse for components isn't true.
Apex — If creatures you control have total highest power on the battlefield,
I think this is a good mechanic but I don't see how it fits here. It does have a sense of building up, but large creatures don't seem at home in this setting.
Why only large creatures? You can go big and narrow or small and wide, both can be viable. It also plays well with auras, combat tricks and of course equipments. It counts power, not base power
Populate. Wink
Keywording Tinker also gives it's colors a unique set identity and helps players to be discrete. (You could almost always tell when a drafter drew an Eldrazi spawnwer card because she had to squint and spend 15 seconds studying it.)
Populate didn't make a certain token, it used the ones already there, so it's not really the same. The draft reason is a very fringe one and can be ignored ^^
When evaluating keywords and mechanics, I always think "Would Wizards print his?", and I sincerely doubt they would keyword a generic token maker. It would force them to always give a keyword to non unique token makers in every set afterwards, since it makes no sense to keyword it once but not again. After a while it would seem pretty dumb to have mechanics like Tinker(Gadget), Spawn(Eldrazi) or Ratchet(Thopter) as keywords.
It would be more sensible to name the mechanic that uses the artifacts, like Metalcraft, since the gadget tokens are not the important part but what you do with them.
Why only large creatures? You can go big and narrow or small and wide, both can be viable. It also plays well with auras, combat tricks and of course equipments. It counts power, not base power
Right... but so do Ferocious and Formidable, and those came with lots of big creatures too. A single 4 power creature is going to add more permanent power to the board than almost any aura, combat trick, or equipment.
The point is that the mechanic is going to naturally lend itself better to environments where having large creatures is a normal thing you want to be doing, and so far it doesn't really seem like this is one of those formats. Giving someone a mechanic that says "have lots of power" but only giving them small creatures to work with isn't all that exciting. They can make it work, but will they want to?
My main issue though is that it doesn't really feel thematic at all to this set.
When evaluating keywords and mechanics, I always think "Would Wizards print his?", and I sincerely doubt they would keyword a generic token maker. It would force them to always give a keyword to non unique token makers in every set afterwards, since it makes no sense to keyword it once but not again. After a while it would seem pretty dumb to have mechanics like Tinker(Gadget), Spawn(Eldrazi) or Ratchet(Thopter) as keywords.
It would be more sensible to name the mechanic that uses the artifacts, like Metalcraft, since the gadget tokens are not the important part but what you do with them.
I actually think Wizards would be far more likely to keyword tinker than they would any of those others. Why? Because tinker doesn't make "generic" tokens.
What is a generic token in magic? It's a creature. Gadgets are blank, but that actually makes them unique as far as tokens go. We hadn't even seen non-creature (non-copy) tokens until Gild. I'm not saying that keywording it makes sense (I'm personally leaning towards no), but Tinker would not be a typical token ability.
FWIW, I do think they should have keyworded making Eldrazi spawn. I also think using Thopters (or another type of creature token) might be a better way to go.
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 can envision a developable Tinker archetype. I've said all I have to say about Tinker. I'll be fine with whatever is decided.
Brass Apothecary (Common) 1W
Creature - Human Cleric
1/3
When Brass Apothecary enters the battlefield, tinker. (Put an artifact token named Gadget onto the battlefield.)
Sacrifice an artifact: You gain 2 life.
Technomancer (Uncommon) 2U
Creature - Human Cleric
2/3
When Technomancer enters the battlefield, tinker. (Put an artifact token named Gadget onto the battlefield.) XU: Target artifact you control becomes a creature with base power and toughness X/X in addition to its other types until end of turn.
Innovation (Rare) 3UU
Sorcery
Tinker, then draw a card for each artifact you control.
For UB land abuse if we're going to pursue it, perhaps a land tapdown archetype could be used ala Mana Skimmer to represent deletion of natural resources. Kind of like "detain target land". I once thought such an effect would be BR, but it was pointed out to me that MaRo says it's actually UB. It doesn't have to be keyworded, but I did it anyways because I'm keyword happy! (Here the Goblin is black because he's covered in soot and oil.)
Oil Dredger (Common) 3B
Creature - Goblin
2/2
When Oil Dredger enters the battlefield, deplete target land. (Tap it. It doesn't untap during its controller's next untap step.)
or
Oil Dredger (Common) 3B
Creature - Goblin
2/2
Deplete (When you cast this, tap target land. It doesn't untap during its controller's next untap step.)
I'm fine designing with or without Tinker. Heck, I think it'll be on at least one card in the set, no matter which form it takes. However, I still think that without a proper token tinker breaks the 2nd rule of Design 103. Neither Technomancer nor Innovation really needs the tinker ability to feel like a complete card. The token can be something really simple like a 2/2 colorless Assembly-Worker, or an equipment with Equip 1 and "Equipped creature gets +1/+0". It just need to feel the least bit relevant.
As for your suggestions of UB, it would be more fun and challenging for the player to not have any kind of ressource denial toward his opponent, and instead just give bonuses to the UB player.
Pre-building reconnaissance 2U (common)
Creature - zombie {2/2}
When ~ enters the battlefield, look at the top four cards of your library. You may reveal an Island or Swamp from them and put it in your hand. Then put the rest back in any order.
Landeater 1UB (uncommon)
Creature - zombie { 2/3}
T, sacrifice an Island or Swamp : Add 3 to you mana pool.
Vaporisation 1U (common)
enchantment - aura
Enchant creature
Enchanted creature is a land and loses all ability. It has “T : Add 2 to your mana pool”
Newcomer occupant 3B (uncommon)
Creature - human {3/3}
When ~ enters the battlefield, if there is a swamp or island in your graveyard, put a 2/2 colourless assembly-worker artifact creature onto the battlefield.
@MOON-E
I'm starting to feel a bit lost with all the keywords submitted and rejected. Ignoring the classics (Steam Powered, Component, Windup, and Tinker since it's the current topic of discussion), what are currently the 3-4 most interesting keywords submitted? Including relevant returning keywords? Just to get a lead and to know in which direction to keep searching.
I actually think Wizards would be far more likely to keyword tinker than they would any of those others. Why? Because tinker doesn't make "generic" tokens.
What is a generic token in magic? It's a creature. Gadgets are blank, but that actually makes them unique as far as tokens go. We hadn't even seen non-creature (non-copy) tokens until Gild. I'm not saying that keywording it makes sense (I'm personally leaning towards no), but Tinker would not be a typical token ability.
FWIW, I do think they should have keyworded making Eldrazi spawn. I also think using Thopters (or another type of creature token) might be a better way to go.
Interesting, but I can't really follow that thought. A generic token to me in Magic is basically every non legendary token except those which are already unique on their own, like the Gild token. Gadget sounds new and not generic at first, but as soon as you have many cards producing them it becomes generic, though funilly enough that's the only reason for keywording it in the first place.
Keywording token producers sounds sensible, but it would be a horrible precedent forcing Wizards to keyword every token producer. There are a lot! of different tokens out there and a lot of token producers which reappear all the time, like Goblins/Elves/Humans/Knights/Soldiers. I sincerely doubt Wizards would ever do that, but who knows...
I'm fine designing with or without Tinker. Heck, I think it'll be on at least one card in the set, no matter which form it takes. However, I still think that without a proper token tinker breaks the 2nd rule of Design 103. Neither Technomancer nor Innovation really needs the tinker ability to feel like a complete card. The token can be something really simple like a 2/2 colorless Assembly-Worker, or an equipment with Equip 1 and "Equipped creature gets +1/+0". It just need to feel the least bit relevant.
True, the set would be relevant in different formats, but hardly any other set can use tokens which do absolutely nothing but beeing pretty on their own. A 2/2 would make all the spells quite expensive, the Bonesaw equipment is a nice touch however. Artifact tappers would be a bit unfair though, since tapping equipment isn't really a cost.
About the colour pairs, do all 10 need to have a definite theme? Or could it be just some possible combinations a deck could be build around?
About the colour pairs, do all 10 need to have a definite theme? Or could it be just some possible combinations a deck could be build around?
It would be best if we did have themes for them. Think about it in term of limited. If we don't make themes for opposing colors and make them partially viable, everyone will be fighting to play one of the 5 main strategy. Khans had that trouble to some extends.
I'm fine designing with or without Tinker. Heck, I think it'll be on at least one card in the set, no matter which form it takes. However, I still think that without a proper token tinker breaks the 2nd rule of Design 103.
I disagree. That rule is more about things not mattering enough. Tinker cards will (or should) always use their gadgets in some way, and even if they don't there will be lots of different ways to make them useful. If you look at MaRo's example, he specifically uses the fact that those cards would not come up enough in limited for them to matter. Contrast that to one of MaRo's favorite mechanics: poison. Infect is another mechanic that forces you to track something that might never matter at all. The reason this is more acceptable is volume; there are enough infect cards in the set that tracking poison will often matter. (Plus, unlike his example, Tinker doesn't involve putting a counter on every single permanent you own. It's much closer to Infect, creating a single stack of identical objects.)
If Tinker were to make useless tokens, it would have to be a major mechanic in order to justify its own existence. If our plan was to use it as a minor mechanic, then I agree that something like the Magic Origins Thopters would make more sense.
@MOON-E
I'm starting to feel a bit lost with all the keywords submitted and rejected. Ignoring the classics (Steam Powered, Component, Windup, and Tinker since it's the current topic of discussion), what are currently the 3-4 most interesting keywords submitted? Including relevant returning keywords? Just to get a lead and to know in which direction to keep searching.
I agree, but honestly I can't remember them all myself (and I don't really want to filter through the last few pages. So how about this: let's each resubmit the mechanics we remember/made up/liked to a semi-official list. Once we have that, we can take a more calculated look at them. I'll get things started:
Potential Mechanics
- Outlast
- Windup (any version)
- Scavenge
- Tinker (or similar)
- Solidarity (I don't know if this is a good mechanic for this set, but I do like some of the gameplay implications)
About the colour pairs, do all 10 need to have a definite theme? Or could it be just some possible combinations a deck could be build around?
We don't need to have each combination have a unique mechanical and creative identity like Magic Origins, but there should be "a deck" for each color combination. Those 10 decks don't need to be the only decks that exist, nor do they have to be the strongest decks, but they do need to exist to give some structure and guidance to the limited format. The idea is essentially that if I'm drafting and I get forced into GU, there should be some deck for me to draft (and not just a pile of blue and green cards).
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.
We can pair each splinter to the first color of it's opposing color pair. Just as a start for flavour and factions. This would give :
(R/W) Revolutionaries
(G/U) Environmentalists
(W/B) Sherifs
(U/R) Umm, something!
(B/G) Another something! Umm, maybe scavengers? Any good industry usually has a ton of wastes usually hidden from sight.
I'm also all in favour of keeping Self land abuse for UB.
Here's some suggestions for the color pairs, just to get this going. Keep or toss, I don't care :
(U/B) Self land abuse, sacrifice lands for profit, turn my lands or creatures into steam engines, count lands in grave, reveal cards from the top of library and take an island or swamp to keep this running
(B/R) The aggro keyword if one is found. Otherwise, another idea can be a ping and pain sub-theme. Block my creature? Take 1. Target my creatures? Take 1. Kill my creatures? Take 1. Oh, and take 1, just because.
(R/G) Non-creature destruction and destruction triggers, to represent the group going against all that high tech stuff. Like, gets +1/+1 counters whenever a non-creature permanent gets destroyed.(G/W) The elves manage the clockwork? Then they should be closer to Windup, maybe be even the only non-artifact creatures with the ability, or the only artifact creatures with full mana cost instead of mono-hybrid mana cost. Or they could be +1/+1 counter lords like outlast in abzan.
(R/W) WIP
(G/U) we could have a minor plant tribal sub-theme, the same way magic origins is doing a small artifact sub-theme. Or flooding the board with plant tokens. Or both.
(W/B) flicker and exile. Flicker to represent the quick-draw of cowboys (if that's how the sherif are represented?) and exile to represent law enforcement, with oblivion ring, tidehollow sculler or flickerwisp effects
(U/R) Whatever the color pair is, it feels izzet enough in an izzet world that I think they should have more steam cards than other color pairs.
(B/G) Small graveyard sub-theme, but with a twist! They reuse(read exile) creatures in graveyard to put zombie tokens, draw cards, give -1/-1 to other creatures or create copy tokens. Essentially spellsligners, but using creatures in (all? only your?) graveyard(s). It could also be artifacts, but artifact recycling isn’t really in BG’s color pie
EDIT : I think if Tinker is viable, the Gadget token should have a default utility, like the gold token. Listing some basic option
"Sacrifice ~ : Target creature gets +0/+1 until end of turn"
"Sacrifice ~ : The next artifact you cast this turn cost 1 less to cast"
"Sacrifice ~ : look at the top two cards of your library. You may reveal and artifact card from them and put it into your hand"
"Sacrifice four artifacts named Gadget : you may put an artifact card from your hand into the battlefield"
EDIT 2 : Got an idea for (R/G) and I added it to the spoiler
Generating magic cards using deep, recurrent neural network
Woops, Venture had a major typo... it was supposed to be 1 not G. It should have read:
Venture (Whenever this creature attacks, the next spell you cast this turn costs 1 less to cast.)
The colour idendity of Steam would beWUB right, since these colours are the technologically advanced on Archester.
That's what it was originally, but that could easily be changed. For instance, in retrospect it seems kind of crazy for Red to not be a major color here: it's primary in rituals and secondary in artifacts overall. White and black, by comparison, don't have nearly as much that synergies with Steam Powered mechanically, just flavor.
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
Maybe, but that would not warrant a keyword in my opinion. Sure, there can be cards doing things with artifacts, that's a given in this set, but there is no reason to name a simple token creator mechanic. A few cards with that should be enough.
That's sensible, but wouldn't you need to rewrite the story quite a bit for that? Steam Powered not beeing in these 3 colours would be quite weird, flavourwise.
A mechanic a few guys and I are using for a set is:
Apex — If creatures you control have total highest power on the battlefield,
It's a variant on Formidable that can ignite from the very first creature on, but also shut down more easily by your opponent.
Could also go on spells too, and it's not really bound to any colour, even though creature heavy colours have an advantage. Nonetheless, artifact creatures can have it too, of course.
I actually think they'd work well together and even like the thought of "Upgrading my Gadgets". If that doesn't feel and sound like building stuff, I don't know what does.
I think Tinker could incidentally serve as a replacement for the spellslinger archetype. (It would have broader applications, but that's besides the point.) Perhaps Tinker could be in all colors with each color using its Gadgets in its own color-appropriate ways.
Repurpose (Common)
R
Sorcery
Destroy target artifact.
Tinker.
Brass Apothecary (Common)
1W
Creature - Human Cleric
1/3
When Brass Apothecary enters the battlefield, tinker.
Sacrifice an artifact: You gain 2 life.
The point of having Tinker as a keyword is to uniformize the token generating process so that as soon as you read it, you know what is going to come out of it. And that is especially true if we add an ability to the token as the (what will be reminder in the case of Tinker) text will get pretty bulky.
Just like Boros had the goblins, I feel like the revolutionaries should have access to a humanoid race too, giving us more design space. (If we keep some of the old flavour, going for a bit more organized version of Gremlins could be interesting) I like the place Enviromentalist occupy in the color pie. Just like simic before, this would be the place where Plants, Mutants and other "weird" creature types could pop up. Stuff like Manaplasm would fit in here probably. I feel like here and in U/B, every Mono-hybrid cards should be powerful but have draw backs if not cast solely on steam. If we look at the old lore, U mages were adept at displacing mana so we could have U/R have a Steam/Ritual theme, giving them the most Steampowered spells, probably those with the "perfect" effects when steam powered (à la Steam Storm) Having G/B keep with the Scavenging type would be good. It fits the colors too. My thoughs on your ideas:
(U/B) Power at all cost is a nice theme for this.
(B/R) Pain and ping sub-theme is interesting. We can also have it be a two-sided weapon, Firedrinker Satyr style. Other than that, I feel like combat tricks are probably where they would excel.
(R/G) Anti-support? I like the theme.
(G/W) Outlast, Windup are the mechanics of this group. If one of the group becomes a "synergistic" group kind of like tribal, I hardly vote for this. A mechanic based on voluntary spendings feels like the best place to have lots of lords.
(R/W) (Nothing was written here as of the writing of this.) R/W have always been a pretty aggressive grouping. Not quite sure what would work here.
(G/U) Tokens flood, large mutants, reactions to opponent casting stuff, etc. are mechanics that could fit here.
(W/B) All in for flicker/exile. We will have to be careful though as these are powerful. Some combat tricks could be in here too.
(U/R) As I said above, temporary ramp, mana holding (Mana Bloom style) and other such "The X is mighty" abilities fit very well here. Mana purification can also be a major subtheme.
(B/G) Graveyard shenanigans, clockwork zombies describe perfectly this color combination.
MODERN:
RG Shamanism RG
WUG Blades of the Avatars WUG
LEGACY:
WUBRG Cascabalance WUBRG
Made by the amazing Traproot
"Some say the clockwork doesn't speak... I say they are deaf to it's voice." -Daeren, Artificer Druid.
Archester Revival (Custom Steampunk set)
Solidarity (Whenever this creature attacks, another attacking creature gets +1/+1 until end of turn)
Assist (Whenever this creature attacks, you may have the next [13] damage dealt to another target attacking creature this turn be dealt to this creature instead.)
NOTE : 13 is completely arbitrary, but a real value is needed to prevent an infinite loop between 2 Assist creatures. May instead be Assist X, where X will usually be around 3-4
Generating magic cards using deep, recurrent neural network
Not quite sure yet about it but since Revolutionnaries could be about surviving to the counter-raids at some points, what about having absorb as a keyword for them?
MODERN:
RG Shamanism RG
WUG Blades of the Avatars WUG
LEGACY:
WUBRG Cascabalance WUBRG
Made by the amazing Traproot
"Some say the clockwork doesn't speak... I say they are deaf to it's voice." -Daeren, Artificer Druid.
Archester Revival (Custom Steampunk set)
Is that reason enough for it to become a official keyword? I like the mechanic, but even if the tokens have abilities, it's still just a token maker.
Eldrazi token makers had no keyword either and a really lengthy ability to boot, but it was no problem to understand the cards
Absorb was nice, would deserve a revival.
A on the nose survivor mechanic could be:
Persevere: At the beginning of the postcombat main phase, if XXX was dealt combat damage this turn, effect...
@deritof
Absorb has a big flaw in that in 90% of situations it plays exactly as extra toughness, and isn't worth the keyword. A variation on it could work if it is more situational or if it works differently.
DavidVSGoliath (Reduce all combat damage creatures with power 4 or greater would deal to this creature to 1)
Shield X (As long as it's your turn, if a creature would deal damage to this creature, prevent X of that damage)
@Gustostueckerl
I think Deridof submitted something similar to Persevere. My answer is the same. It's doable, but imposes a very real limit on what kind of effects we can put on it since it occurs after combat, thus after all the action happened and after your creature potentially died.
Generating magic cards using deep, recurrent neural network
DavidVsGoliath and ShieldX are nice, but possibly too strong in some cases. A David with toughness of 2 blocks every fatty and survives, and shield X works too much like Absorb, just half of it.
Maybe tackling the problem from another angle might prove more useful. Do you have some non-keyword ideas for the 10 color pairs? Any limited or flavour theme we could use?
@MOON-E
As far as returning keywords go, would Unearth be any good? It could fit into (B/G), tertiary in R, be somewhat new since green never got the ability before, and could represent the scavengers unearthing lost goods from the huge pile of engine debris. It's just another suggestion to add to the list of Outlast, Battalion, Scavenge, and Proliferate :3
Generating magic cards using deep, recurrent neural network
Everyone on the plane uses steam power, not just the civilized folk. We might want to do some reorganization but it doesn't seem like an issue.
I think this is a good mechanic but I don't see how it fits here. It does have a sense of building up, but large creatures don't seem at home in this setting.
This is true. The reason we might want to scrap one or the other is a) Both have a moderately high complexity cost, and b) upgrades for the most part add bonus effects onto artifacts that do things, which might make them a bit worse when attached to artifacts that do nothing.
On the one hand, this being a keyword action makes a lot of sense to me. It simplifies things and allows us to put it on all sorts of different abilities. At the same time, this type of thing is usually not keyworded even when it's incredibly wordy (see: all the eldrazi spawn cardd). I also don't like the idea of putting it on spells that have no way to immediately use them.
Humans are a humanoid race? But in case you meant non-humans, Minotaurs and Viashino have always been a part of this group.
I'm still entertaining the idea of Scavenge itself coming back. Seems like something that could easily go on artifacts.
I would ward against this being a major theme. We tried to make this work in the original set, and IMO it didn't pan out. While it's certainly flavorful, it's a bad idea to create an archetype all about reacting to your opponent.
I like this mechanic, it seems like it has a lot of cool gameplay to it. Battlecry is another mechanic that could potentially go here. It does at least give the sense of building up, though it's not exactly my favorite.
There are a whole bunch of combat damage reduction, which are a tad strange as they don't really seem to fit the setting. Absorb is not a good choice for the reasons Grim stated.
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
Populate.
Keywording Tinker also gives it's colors a unique set identity and helps players to be discrete. (You could almost always tell when a drafter drew an Eldrazi spawnwer card because she had to squint and spend 15 seconds studying it.)
My vote currently goes to Upgrade, since it doesn't bode well with me to make a card that creates an empty token. Origins did this well by having all the artifact tokens be 1/1 flyers, why are powerful and exciting by themselves. They didn't need to keyword anything to give unity to their token making. Currently, if a creature with Tinker as an ETB effect dies before you can sacrifice the Gadget (because it's a tap ability for example), then you're left with a useless token. If we find some basic use for the token, one that doesn't require a synergistic card to go with it, then I'm all for it! Whoa!! That's going deep!
Generating magic cards using deep, recurrent neural network
This is hilarious.
I'm not sure tinker and upgrade have to be mutually exculsive, just that there are some reasons for it. FWIW, Upgrade has a similar problem: if you draw your components but no other artifacts they technically "do nothing" until you draw one, the same way a left over trinket does nothing until you draw an enabler.
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
whereas a Gadget requires specific cards that either sacrifice, tap, count, or attach to a non-creature artifact, which is a bit more limiting. And even if Tinker is not keyworded, it can still be present in the set as a few artifact token-making cards, while the inverse for components isn't true.
Generating magic cards using deep, recurrent neural network
Why only large creatures? You can go big and narrow or small and wide, both can be viable. It also plays well with auras, combat tricks and of course equipments. It counts power, not base power
Populate didn't make a certain token, it used the ones already there, so it's not really the same. The draft reason is a very fringe one and can be ignored ^^
When evaluating keywords and mechanics, I always think "Would Wizards print his?", and I sincerely doubt they would keyword a generic token maker. It would force them to always give a keyword to non unique token makers in every set afterwards, since it makes no sense to keyword it once but not again. After a while it would seem pretty dumb to have mechanics like Tinker(Gadget), Spawn(Eldrazi) or Ratchet(Thopter) as keywords.
It would be more sensible to name the mechanic that uses the artifacts, like Metalcraft, since the gadget tokens are not the important part but what you do with them.
The point is that the mechanic is going to naturally lend itself better to environments where having large creatures is a normal thing you want to be doing, and so far it doesn't really seem like this is one of those formats. Giving someone a mechanic that says "have lots of power" but only giving them small creatures to work with isn't all that exciting. They can make it work, but will they want to?
My main issue though is that it doesn't really feel thematic at all to this set.
I actually think Wizards would be far more likely to keyword tinker than they would any of those others. Why? Because tinker doesn't make "generic" tokens.
What is a generic token in magic? It's a creature. Gadgets are blank, but that actually makes them unique as far as tokens go. We hadn't even seen non-creature (non-copy) tokens until Gild. I'm not saying that keywording it makes sense (I'm personally leaning towards no), but Tinker would not be a typical token ability.
FWIW, I do think they should have keyworded making Eldrazi spawn. I also think using Thopters (or another type of creature token) might be a better way to go.
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
Brass Apothecary (Common)
1W
Creature - Human Cleric
1/3
When Brass Apothecary enters the battlefield, tinker. (Put an artifact token named Gadget onto the battlefield.)
Sacrifice an artifact: You gain 2 life.
Technomancer (Uncommon)
2U
Creature - Human Cleric
2/3
When Technomancer enters the battlefield, tinker. (Put an artifact token named Gadget onto the battlefield.)
XU: Target artifact you control becomes a creature with base power and toughness X/X in addition to its other types until end of turn.
Innovation (Rare)
3UU
Sorcery
Tinker, then draw a card for each artifact you control.
For UB land abuse if we're going to pursue it, perhaps a land tapdown archetype could be used ala Mana Skimmer to represent deletion of natural resources. Kind of like "detain target land". I once thought such an effect would be BR, but it was pointed out to me that MaRo says it's actually UB. It doesn't have to be keyworded, but I did it anyways because I'm keyword happy! (Here the Goblin is black because he's covered in soot and oil.)
Oil Dredger (Common)
3B
Creature - Goblin
2/2
When Oil Dredger enters the battlefield, deplete target land. (Tap it. It doesn't untap during its controller's next untap step.)
or
Oil Dredger (Common)
3B
Creature - Goblin
2/2
Deplete (When you cast this, tap target land. It doesn't untap during its controller's next untap step.)
As for your suggestions of UB, it would be more fun and challenging for the player to not have any kind of ressource denial toward his opponent, and instead just give bonuses to the UB player.
Creature - zombie {2/2}
When ~ enters the battlefield, look at the top four cards of your library. You may reveal an Island or Swamp from them and put it in your hand. Then put the rest back in any order.
Landeater 1UB (uncommon)
Creature - zombie { 2/3}
T, sacrifice an Island or Swamp : Add 3 to you mana pool.
Vaporisation 1U (common)
enchantment - aura
Enchant creature
Enchanted creature is a land and loses all ability. It has “T : Add 2 to your mana pool”
Newcomer occupant 3B (uncommon)
Creature - human {3/3}
When ~ enters the battlefield, if there is a swamp or island in your graveyard, put a 2/2 colourless assembly-worker artifact creature onto the battlefield.
@MOON-E
I'm starting to feel a bit lost with all the keywords submitted and rejected. Ignoring the classics (Steam Powered, Component, Windup, and Tinker since it's the current topic of discussion), what are currently the 3-4 most interesting keywords submitted? Including relevant returning keywords? Just to get a lead and to know in which direction to keep searching.
Generating magic cards using deep, recurrent neural network
Interesting, but I can't really follow that thought. A generic token to me in Magic is basically every non legendary token except those which are already unique on their own, like the Gild token. Gadget sounds new and not generic at first, but as soon as you have many cards producing them it becomes generic, though funilly enough that's the only reason for keywording it in the first place.
Keywording token producers sounds sensible, but it would be a horrible precedent forcing Wizards to keyword every token producer. There are a lot! of different tokens out there and a lot of token producers which reappear all the time, like Goblins/Elves/Humans/Knights/Soldiers. I sincerely doubt Wizards would ever do that, but who knows...
True, the set would be relevant in different formats, but hardly any other set can use tokens which do absolutely nothing but beeing pretty on their own. A 2/2 would make all the spells quite expensive, the Bonesaw equipment is a nice touch however. Artifact tappers would be a bit unfair though, since tapping equipment isn't really a cost.
About the colour pairs, do all 10 need to have a definite theme? Or could it be just some possible combinations a deck could be build around?
MODERN:
RG Shamanism RG
WUG Blades of the Avatars WUG
LEGACY:
WUBRG Cascabalance WUBRG
Made by the amazing Traproot
"Some say the clockwork doesn't speak... I say they are deaf to it's voice." -Daeren, Artificer Druid.
Archester Revival (Custom Steampunk set)
If Tinker were to make useless tokens, it would have to be a major mechanic in order to justify its own existence. If our plan was to use it as a minor mechanic, then I agree that something like the Magic Origins Thopters would make more sense.
I agree, but honestly I can't remember them all myself (and I don't really want to filter through the last few pages. So how about this: let's each resubmit the mechanics we remember/made up/liked to a semi-official list. Once we have that, we can take a more calculated look at them. I'll get things started:
Potential Mechanics
- Outlast
- Windup (any version)
- Scavenge
- Tinker (or similar)
- Solidarity (I don't know if this is a good mechanic for this set, but I do like some of the gameplay implications)
We don't need to have each combination have a unique mechanical and creative identity like Magic Origins, but there should be "a deck" for each color combination. Those 10 decks don't need to be the only decks that exist, nor do they have to be the strongest decks, but they do need to exist to give some structure and guidance to the limited format. The idea is essentially that if I'm drafting and I get forced into GU, there should be some deck for me to draft (and not just a pile of blue and green cards).
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