The following are for a set in the making, in which multicolored matters and Equipment matters.
It's tough to design a decent, balanced, interesting, original mana rock at common, especially one that can be cycled out.
I think I've done that here but could use confirmation (or the opposite).
I am almost 100% certain you do not want that many p/t increasing common equipment in your set. P/t increasing equipment is something you need to be wary of because unlike auras they can make all of your creatures threats. Most sets don't event have this many across all rarities. You would be better served granting keywords at a lower equip cost.
You also probably don't want Equipment that tap, in general, for comprehension complexity reasons. Specifically, a lot of people reflexively turn their Auras/Equipment attached to a creature when they tap that creature, even though those permanents are not actually tapped.
I am almost 100% certain you do not want that many p/t increasing common equipment in your set. P/t increasing equipment is something you need to be wary of because unlike auras they can make all of your creatures threats. Most sets don't event have this many across all rarities. You would be better served granting keywords at a lower equip cost.
I think any % of uncertainty at least warrants playtesting. Due to the nature of some evergreen keywords (deathtouch, hexproof, first strike) P/T increasing Equipment seems like a much safer bet at common than granting such keywords. Not only because of that, but also because the Equipment essentially zero each other out. As in, if my opponent and I each control a Grizzly Bear equipped with an Emerald-Tipped Spear, then all things remain equal. But if we each control a Grizzy Bear but one of them has first strike and the other has vigilance... That being said here are the keyword possibilities:
*These abilities are obviously out of the question at common (and even hexproof is dubious), which leaves black without an ability unless I'm missing something (such as black having flying).
EDIT: Another possibility could be: Equipped creature gets +1/+1 for each of its colors, which plays nicely with both the Equipment theme and the multicolored theme, increases the play value of the hybrid vanillas, and adds some combat variance. EDIT EDIT: Here's another idea that will do all of the above and create more room in the set.
Pearl Automaton (Common) 3
Artifact Creature - Construct
0/1
Pearl Automaton enters the battlefield equipped with a colorless artifact Equipment token. It has “Equip 1” and “Equipped creature gets +1/+1.” T: Add W.
Note that these would still fill a noncreature slot as their primary purpose is to provide Equipment/ramp/fixing rather than a body.
You also probably don't want Equipment that tap, in general, for comprehension complexity reasons. Specifically, a lot of people reflexively turn their Auras/Equipment attached to a creature when they tap that creature, even though those permanents are not actually tapped.
The set is, overall, of very low complexity, which might mitigate this aspect enough to permit it.
Really random idea - but would something like this work within the rules? (taking some language from battlemages)
~ 2
Artifact - Equipment
If ~ was equipped with its 1 equip cost, [put a charge counter on ~, and] equipped creature has "0: add W to your mana pool. Activate this ability only any time you could cast a sorcery and only once each turn."
If ~ was equipped with its 3W equip cost, equipped creature has "X"
[If ~ would become unequiped from a creature remove all charge counters from it]
Equip 1 or 3W
Bracketed language to deal with memory issues needed? Edit 2 to deal with the fact that you didn't want the creature to tap. . . and . . . i've made it too complex haven't I? Final edit - this I think allows for infinite targeting combos, unfortunately . . .
Really random idea - but would something like this work within the rules? (taking some language from battlemages)
~ 2
Artifact - Equipment
If ~ was equipped with its 1 equip cost, [put a charge counter on ~, and] equipped creature has "0: add W to your mana pool. Activate this ability only any time you could cast a sorcery and only once each turn."
If ~ was equipped with its 3W equip cost, equipped creature has "X"
[If ~ would become unequiped from a creature remove all charge counters from it]
Equip 1 or 3W
Bracketed language to deal with memory issues needed? Edit 2 to deal with the fact that you didn't want the creature to tap. . . and . . . i've made it too complex haven't I? Final edit - this I think allows for infinite targeting combos, unfortunately . . .
I'd balk at putting that kind of dual equip ability on a rare, much less a common designed to fill the mana rock niche. While the general idea of a piece of equipment that can serve multiples purposes is interesting, your execution is far too busy.
Why wouldn't the Equipment grant the mana tapping ability to the equipped creature? Slapping a standalone mana tap ability onto an Equipment looks clunky and creates a conflict of purpose. Equipment are supposed to be extensions of creatures; putting abilities that function independently of creatures on Equipment is missing the point, novelty for the sake of novelty. The one exception to this rule are Equipment that turn into creatures, like Ensouled Scimitar and Haunted Plate Mail, and even then such cards appear infrequently.
Now, DFCs that are mana rocks on one face and Equipment on the other have potential. For example, "The Sword in the Stone" could be an artifact that taps for mana and can transform into "The Marvelous Sword", an Equipment that grants a nice P/T bonus and maybe a few useful keywords like first strike and vigilance, or a triggered attacking ability that creates tokens or pumps other attacking creatures you control. You could also have Equipment that transform into mana rocks, though it would be difficult to make that feel as exciting. Dowsing Dagger comes close; it transforms into a land rather than a mana rock, but the concept is very similar.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTGS Wikia Article about "New World Order"
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
PSA to everyone who keeps forgetting about the Reserved List:
You're on a website dedicated to talking about MtG. You're only a few keystrokes away from finding out what cards are on the Reserved List. You're also only a few keystrokes away from finding out why some cards on the Reserved List got foil printings in FtV, as Judge promos, or whatnot, as well as why that won't happen again. Stop doing this.
Really random idea - but would something like this work within the rules? (taking some language from battlemages)
~ 2
Artifact - Equipment
If ~ was equipped with its 1 equip cost, [put a charge counter on ~, and] equipped creature has "0: add W to your mana pool. Activate this ability only any time you could cast a sorcery and only once each turn."
If ~ was equipped with its 3W equip cost, equipped creature has "X"
[If ~ would become unequiped from a creature remove all charge counters from it]
Equip 1 or 3W
Bracketed language to deal with memory issues needed? Edit 2 to deal with the fact that you didn't want the creature to tap. . . and . . . i've made it too complex haven't I? Final edit - this I think allows for infinite targeting combos, unfortunately . . .
Annoyingly complex. No way a common, or probably even uncommon. It is essentially two different (common) equiment slapped together, then more wording added to make two equip costs, then add+remove counter clauses.
AFAIK, there is no such term as "unequip" but there is "unattach".
Equipment are supposed to be extensions of creatures...
I think this is a matter of flavor rather than an inherent quality of equipment in general. My general perception of equipment is they’re just objects that creatures hold and/or wear.
Now, DFCs that are mana rocks on one face and Equipment on the other have potential. For example, "The Sword in the Stone" could be an artifact that taps for mana and can transform into "The Marvelous Sword", an Equipment that grants a nice P/T bonus and maybe a few useful keywords like first strike and vigilance, or a triggered attacking ability that creates tokens or pumps other attacking creatures you control. You could also have Equipment that transform into mana rocks, though it would be difficult to make that feel as exciting. Dowsing Dagger comes close; it transforms into a land rather than a mana rock, but the concept is very similar.
Equipment are supposed to be extensions of creatures...
I think this is a matter of flavor rather than an inherent quality of equipment in general. My general perception of equipment is they’re just objects that creatures hold and/or wear.
The entire point of Equipment is to enhance creatures in some way. If a particular effect can be done on a non-Equipment card, then it shouldn't be on an Equipment. An Equipment becoming a creature prevents it from being attached to creatures, thus any abilities it might gain while a creature don't conflict with the intuitive convention of tucking Equipment under creatures. So, if your Equipment can become an artifact creature with a tap ability, preferably one that it otherwise grants to the equipped creature, then that can work. But note that even temporary creature modes are far more common on lands and non-Equipment artifacts.
The only other convention that technically works is if the tap ability can only be used while the Equipment isn't attached to a creature, but that still looks incredibly clunky and contradicts the very core purpose of Equipment. You play Equipment because you want to attach them to creatures. Any abilities on the Equipment that discourage attaching it to creatures are counter-productive. And yes, a standalone tap effect discourages attaching the Equipment to creatures because the player has to physically maneuver the card while it's tucked under their creature, thus they won't want to both attach the Equipment and still use its tap ability. It's far, far better for the Equipment to grant the tap ability to the equipped creature.
I just brainstormed a cycle of rings that are effectively Paradise Mantle, but for a single color. They have the secondary effect of untapping the creature, giving it +1/+1 until end of turn, and granting it an appropriate keyword until end of turn whenever you cast a spell of the appropriate color. You can find them in the Mana Ring topic I just posted.
MTGS Wikia Article about "New World Order"
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
PSA to everyone who keeps forgetting about the Reserved List:
You're on a website dedicated to talking about MtG. You're only a few keystrokes away from finding out what cards are on the Reserved List. You're also only a few keystrokes away from finding out why some cards on the Reserved List got foil printings in FtV, as Judge promos, or whatnot, as well as why that won't happen again. Stop doing this.
Wouldn't it be neat for those if spectra counted colors in the color identity?
Really like this suggestion but I'm against color identity outside commader.
I would rather have then colored. If any artifact ever deserved a color, its the mana rocks.
I’d considered having Spectra check for color identity, but it didn’t feel organic to me. I guess I’m a little old school in that regard. I mean, I think to do so would certainly be in line with WotC’s current design conventions and trends, which I find myself a little resistant to both as a player and designer. I’ll reconsider it.
I also considered coloring the mana rocks, but didn’t for a few reasons. One, I had the same feeling about it that I had with color identity, only to a lesser degree. Two, having colored mana rocks alongside colorless artifact creatures is inconsistent. And C, most importantly, they’re no good for fixing mana if they cost the color of mana they produce.
Maybe twobrid mana would work. But it might come across as “off” in a set that has hybrids.
It's tough to design a decent, balanced, interesting, original mana rock at common, especially one that can be cycled out.
I think I've done that here but could use confirmation (or the opposite).
white
blue
black
red
green
golems
Pearl Monocle (Common)
3
Artifact
T: Add W.
T, Sacrifice Pearl Monocle: Draw a card.
cycled out...
3
Artifact - Equipment
T: Add W.
Equipped creature gets +2/+2.
Equip 3W
Sapphire-Tipped Staff (Common)
3
Artifact - Equipment
T: Add U.
Equipped creature gets +2/+2.
Equip 3U
Onyx-Tipped Staff (Common)
3
Artifact - Equipment
T: Add B.
Equipped creature gets +2/+2.
Equip 3B
Ruby-Tipped Staff (Common)
3
Artifact - Equipment
T: Add R.
Equipped creature gets +2/+2.
Equip 3R
Emerald-Tipped Staff (Common)
3
Artifact - Equipment
T: Add G.
Equipped creature gets +2/+2.
Equip 3G
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
I think any % of uncertainty at least warrants playtesting. Due to the nature of some evergreen keywords (deathtouch, hexproof, first strike) P/T increasing Equipment seems like a much safer bet at common than granting such keywords. Not only because of that, but also because the Equipment essentially zero each other out. As in, if my opponent and I each control a Grizzly Bear equipped with an Emerald-Tipped Spear, then all things remain equal. But if we each control a Grizzy Bear but one of them has first strike and the other has vigilance... That being said here are the keyword possibilities:
W: double strike*, first strike, flying, indestructible*, vigilance
U: flying, hexproof
B: deathtouch*, indestructible*
R: double strike*, first strike, haste, trample
G: hexproof, indestructible*, trample, vigilance
*These abilities are obviously out of the question at common (and even hexproof is dubious), which leaves black without an ability unless I'm missing something (such as black having flying).
EDIT: Another possibility could be: Equipped creature gets +1/+1 for each of its colors, which plays nicely with both the Equipment theme and the multicolored theme, increases the play value of the hybrid vanillas, and adds some combat variance.
EDIT EDIT: Here's another idea that will do all of the above and create more room in the set.
Pearl Automaton (Common)
3
Artifact Creature - Construct
0/1
Pearl Automaton enters the battlefield equipped with a colorless artifact Equipment token. It has “Equip 1” and “Equipped creature gets +1/+1.”
T: Add W.
Note that these would still fill a noncreature slot as their primary purpose is to provide Equipment/ramp/fixing rather than a body.
The set is, overall, of very low complexity, which might mitigate this aspect enough to permit it.
I agree with Void Nothing that having the equipment tap independently of the creature is a bad idea for visibility reasons. Particularly at common.
A better alternative might be to have them be able to be sacrificed in order to create a +1/+1 equipment token as per your 'armed' mechanic.
- Rabid Wombat
~ 2
Artifact - Equipment
If ~ was equipped with its 1 equip cost, [put a charge counter on ~, and] equipped creature has "0: add W to your mana pool. Activate this ability only any time you could cast a sorcery and only once each turn."
If ~ was equipped with its 3W equip cost, equipped creature has "X"
[If ~ would become unequiped from a creature remove all charge counters from it]
Equip 1 or 3W
Bracketed language to deal with memory issues needed? Edit 2 to deal with the fact that you didn't want the creature to tap. . . and . . . i've made it too complex haven't I? Final edit - this I think allows for infinite targeting combos, unfortunately . . .
I'd balk at putting that kind of dual equip ability on a rare, much less a common designed to fill the mana rock niche. While the general idea of a piece of equipment that can serve multiples purposes is interesting, your execution is far too busy.
Now, DFCs that are mana rocks on one face and Equipment on the other have potential. For example, "The Sword in the Stone" could be an artifact that taps for mana and can transform into "The Marvelous Sword", an Equipment that grants a nice P/T bonus and maybe a few useful keywords like first strike and vigilance, or a triggered attacking ability that creates tokens or pumps other attacking creatures you control. You could also have Equipment that transform into mana rocks, though it would be difficult to make that feel as exciting. Dowsing Dagger comes close; it transforms into a land rather than a mana rock, but the concept is very similar.
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
Annoyingly complex. No way a common, or probably even uncommon. It is essentially two different (common) equiment slapped together, then more wording added to make two equip costs, then add+remove counter clauses.
AFAIK, there is no such term as "unequip" but there is "unattach".
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
I think this is a matter of flavor rather than an inherent quality of equipment in general. My general perception of equipment is they’re just objects that creatures hold and/or wear.
I agree, but this set is too basic for transform.
I... can... not... believe... that... I... forgot... Menace... I must have been tired.
The entire point of Equipment is to enhance creatures in some way. If a particular effect can be done on a non-Equipment card, then it shouldn't be on an Equipment. An Equipment becoming a creature prevents it from being attached to creatures, thus any abilities it might gain while a creature don't conflict with the intuitive convention of tucking Equipment under creatures. So, if your Equipment can become an artifact creature with a tap ability, preferably one that it otherwise grants to the equipped creature, then that can work. But note that even temporary creature modes are far more common on lands and non-Equipment artifacts.
The only other convention that technically works is if the tap ability can only be used while the Equipment isn't attached to a creature, but that still looks incredibly clunky and contradicts the very core purpose of Equipment. You play Equipment because you want to attach them to creatures. Any abilities on the Equipment that discourage attaching it to creatures are counter-productive. And yes, a standalone tap effect discourages attaching the Equipment to creatures because the player has to physically maneuver the card while it's tucked under their creature, thus they won't want to both attach the Equipment and still use its tap ability. It's far, far better for the Equipment to grant the tap ability to the equipped creature.
I just brainstormed a cycle of rings that are effectively Paradise Mantle, but for a single color. They have the secondary effect of untapping the creature, giving it +1/+1 until end of turn, and granting it an appropriate keyword until end of turn whenever you cast a spell of the appropriate color. You can find them in the Mana Ring topic I just posted.
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
Pearl Monocle (Common)
3
Artifact
t: Add W.
t, Sacrifice Pearl Monocle: Draw a card.
...cycled out...
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO
Color identity is a little harder to grok in-game than color, which is why you don't see it. Having both together could create confusion.
Really like this suggestion but I'm against color identity outside commader.
I would rather have then colored. If any artifact ever deserved a color, its the mana rocks.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
I’d considered having Spectra check for color identity, but it didn’t feel organic to me. I guess I’m a little old school in that regard. I mean, I think to do so would certainly be in line with WotC’s current design conventions and trends, which I find myself a little resistant to both as a player and designer. I’ll reconsider it.
I also considered coloring the mana rocks, but didn’t for a few reasons. One, I had the same feeling about it that I had with color identity, only to a lesser degree. Two, having colored mana rocks alongside colorless artifact creatures is inconsistent. And C, most importantly, they’re no good for fixing mana if they cost the color of mana they produce.
Maybe twobrid mana would work. But it might come across as “off” in a set that has hybrids.