Had a long discussion of a construction project over dinner, and this idea came to me.
Idea
Artifact - Building
TYPE Construction
Rules: Building is a new subtype of Artifacts. All Buildings have the keyword Construction, often preceded by a Subtype or Supertype.
Buildings function identically to Auras, with TYPE Construction replacing the Enchant TYPE. The key difference is that they can only target Lands you control.
If the TYPE isn't there, the card can be attached to any land you control.
Since this piggybacks off of how Auras work, basically all other rules required for these to work already exist; i.e. if a Building is put onto the battlefield without being cast, you may attach it to any legal land you control, even if it has Shroud.
Why
The first question that I can see being asked is "Why do something that Enchantments can already do?" The quickest answer I have is "There are plenty of effects in Magic that are just a more limited version of an effect that already exists. Why not do a flavorful alternative to auras?"
The mechanic also interacts with colors a bit differently. Only going on Lands means that the most common problem with auras, the target going away in response, will almost never happen. Being artifacts gives Red and Blue a chance for beneficial interactions with them, when Auras would almost certainly be in Green and White. Since the idea of colored artifacts is old news now, there can be two ways to color-restrict effects, with either the card having a colored cost, or the Construction target being a specific land type.
Examples
Rallying Fort W
Artifact - Building
Plains Construction
When Constructed land is used to cast a Creature spell, put a +1/+1 counter on another creature you control.
(Note: This is a wording that wouldn't be used right now (it would say something about mana produced by the land) but makes it shorter)
Tunnel Project 3
Artifact - Building (R)
Basic Construction 4,T, Sacrifice Tunnel Project: Put a Tunnel counter on Constructed Land. It gains "T: Target creature without flying can't be blocked this turn
Elven Outpost 1G
Artifact - Building
Non-Forest Construction
Whenever Constructed Land is tapped for mana, add GG.
Usage
I don't think this has too much design space. Having this as a mechanic for a set or two, showing up on a single plane, might be enough.
I wasn't trying to think of a deep, evergreen mechanic. I just was trying to wrap my head around an idea thought up at dinner.
Future Sight had Darksteel Garrison, so the idea isn't anything new. I take it that making your idea function like auras is for flavor reasons, but fortifications are more intuitive by virtue of being equipment that target a different type. You actually do a pretty good job of outlining your idea's weaknesses yourself, and, if you were designing a set, I think this mechanic would end up on the chopping block. Even the poster mechanic for small design space, Haunt, at least has uniqueness on its side. Talking about how Wizards has put out some uninspired mechanics over the years is, frankly, a weak justification for a weak mechanic.
Let me take a different angle and ask you this: What is the difference between artifacts and enchantments? Creatures, lands, instants, sorceries, and planeswalkers all have unique rules that govern how they function and can be played, but artifacts and enchantments are both, at the rules level, generic permanents. Since all they actually do, inherently, is sit around and be interacted with by cards that care about one or the other, all of their differences boil down to individual card and mechanic design, much like with color.
Subtypes such as auras, equipment, and vehicles all get their own rules, but that doesn't apply at the entire card type level. Generally, artifacts have more activated abilities and enchantments more static abilities, though that distinction has so much grey area that the only real boundary is the symbol. Colorlessness is the other major differentiator, but when you strip that away and give artifacts what is effectively an enchantment subtype, what remains between them? In my opinion, the biggest problem with your idea is that you take two types that already don't have enough in between and turn them into an amorphous blob. If the design-based differentiation of the color pie keeps the game interesting, then the same considerations should be made for artifacts and enchantments.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Idea
Since this piggybacks off of how Auras work, basically all other rules required for these to work already exist; i.e. if a Building is put onto the battlefield without being cast, you may attach it to any legal land you control, even if it has Shroud.
Why
The first question that I can see being asked is "Why do something that Enchantments can already do?" The quickest answer I have is "There are plenty of effects in Magic that are just a more limited version of an effect that already exists. Why not do a flavorful alternative to auras?"
The mechanic also interacts with colors a bit differently. Only going on Lands means that the most common problem with auras, the target going away in response, will almost never happen. Being artifacts gives Red and Blue a chance for beneficial interactions with them, when Auras would almost certainly be in Green and White. Since the idea of colored artifacts is old news now, there can be two ways to color-restrict effects, with either the card having a colored cost, or the Construction target being a specific land type.
Examples
Usage
I don't think this has too much design space. Having this as a mechanic for a set or two, showing up on a single plane, might be enough.
I wasn't trying to think of a deep, evergreen mechanic. I just was trying to wrap my head around an idea thought up at dinner.
Let me take a different angle and ask you this: What is the difference between artifacts and enchantments? Creatures, lands, instants, sorceries, and planeswalkers all have unique rules that govern how they function and can be played, but artifacts and enchantments are both, at the rules level, generic permanents. Since all they actually do, inherently, is sit around and be interacted with by cards that care about one or the other, all of their differences boil down to individual card and mechanic design, much like with color.
Subtypes such as auras, equipment, and vehicles all get their own rules, but that doesn't apply at the entire card type level. Generally, artifacts have more activated abilities and enchantments more static abilities, though that distinction has so much grey area that the only real boundary is the symbol. Colorlessness is the other major differentiator, but when you strip that away and give artifacts what is effectively an enchantment subtype, what remains between them? In my opinion, the biggest problem with your idea is that you take two types that already don't have enough in between and turn them into an amorphous blob. If the design-based differentiation of the color pie keeps the game interesting, then the same considerations should be made for artifacts and enchantments.