Having said that, I think Ninja Caterpie's idea is the way to go. It allows for both the ability to have the Contraptions be usable on their own while giving incentive to assemble. Also since the Contraptions can still tap independently of the artifact they're attached (basing this off of Second Wind) they should create interesting "rube goldberg"-esque situations
Doesn't my mechanic also allow contraptions to be used on their own, given incentive to assemble, and tap independently of the artifact they're attached to?
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.
Doesn't my mechanic also allow contraptions to be used on their own, given incentive to assemble, and tap independently of the artifact they're attached to?
I didn't think it did... <rereads the post> IDK. As I understood your post, the contraptions lost their abilities and gave them to the attached artifact. But I guess I was wrong.
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.
I didn't think it did... <rereads the post> IDK. As I understood your post, the contraptions lost their abilities and gave them to the attached artifact. But I guess I was wrong.
Hm, I didn't think it was that complicated, but perhaps I didn't explain it well.
Each artifact in the contraption gives it's abilities to the one it's attached to, but keeps it's own. For example. If I equip Grindstone Gearbox to a Kraken's Eye, Gearbox will have it's ability, and the Eye will have it's original ability plus the ability of the gearbox.
Now, if I attach Goldengear Generator to the Gearbox, it gives it's abilities to the gearbox which in turn gives them to the Eye.
It sounds confusing, but makes sense when you see it. Normally, when you equip something, you put the card behind it and slightly above. With assembly, you do the same thing, so you end up with a stack of cards that makes it easy to see what's going on. Like this:
v Goldengear Generator
v Grindstone Gearbox
Kraken's Eye
Each card has the abilities of the ones above it and it's own. Simple, see? I guess I just didn't explain it well.
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.
Simple in concept, but probably too complex in execution?
Is it? TBH, I don't think it's that complex, but I made it, so I obviously have a biased opinion.
This idea came to me mainly because we're going to run into this problem: almost everyone stacks equipment behind the creature. If you have multiple equipment, you just put them one after another. But with contraptions, the third one could be attached to the first, or the second because both are legal targets. Rather than create this confusion, why not encourage people to stack their contraptions?
I don't know, maybe I just like the idea of having a big contraption chain.
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.
Vitality Works(2/W)
Artifact - Contraption
:symtap:: You gain life equal to the number of artifacts attached to ~ plus 1.
Assemble 1(1: Attach target noncreature artifact you control to this permanent. Assemble only as a sorcery.)
Grindstone Mechanism(2/U)
Artifact - Contraption
~ and artifacts attached to ~ have ":symtap:: Target player puts the top 2 cards of his or her library into his or her graveyard."
Assemble 2(2: Attach target noncreature artifact you control to this permanent. Assemble only as a sorcery.)
Explosive Conglomeration(2/R)(2/R)
Artifact - Contraption
Sacrifice ~: ~ deals damage to target creature or player equal to 2 plus 2 for each Contraption and/or Equipment (that was ?) attached to ~.
Assemble (2/R)(2/R)((2/R)(2/R): Attach target noncreature artifact you control to this permanent. Assemble only as a sorcery.)
Steam Boiler2
Artifact - Contraption
Tap ~ or an untapped artifact attached to ~: Add 1 to your mana pool.
Assemble 2(2: Attach target noncreature artifact you control to this permanent. Assemble only as a sorcery.)
Gadget Collector4
Artifact Creature - Contraption Construct
~ gets +1/+1 for each artifact attached to it.
Assemble 2(2: Attach target noncreature artifact you control to this permanent. Assemble only as a sorcery.)
Hm, I didn't think it was that complicated, but perhaps I didn't explain it well.
Each artifact in the contraption gives it's abilities to the one it's attached to, but keeps it's own. For example. If I equip Grindstone Gearbox to a Kraken's Eye, Gearbox will have it's ability, and the Eye will have it's original ability plus the ability of the gearbox.
Now, if I attach Goldengear Generator to the Gearbox, it gives it's abilities to the gearbox which in turn gives them to the Eye.
It sounds confusing, but makes sense when you see it. Normally, when you equip something, you put the card behind it and slightly above. With assembly, you do the same thing, so you end up with a stack of cards that makes it easy to see what's going on. Like this:
v Goldengear Generator
v Grindstone Gearbox
Kraken's Eye
Each card has the abilities of the ones above it and it's own. Simple, see? I guess I just didn't explain it well.
Ok, I see what you mean, but can you attach permanents to permanents already attaching to another permanent? I didn't think you could. IDK Wouldn't a better solution be to only allow contraptions to attach to artifacts not already attached to another permanent? like this...
Ok, I see what you mean, but can you attach permanents to permanents already attaching to another permanent? I didn't think you could. Wouldn't a better solution be to only allow contraptions to attach to artifacts not already attached to another permanent? like this...
Ok, I see what you mean, but can you attach permanents to permanents already attaching to another permanent? I didn't think you could. Wouldn't a better solution be to only allow contraptions to attach to artifacts not already attached to another permanent? like this...
Having the ability carry over makes it naturally scaling. You don't need to add another line saying the bonus you get for assembling; the bonus is obvious because you get to carry the ability over! I also like it because it scales well the more you have. Sure, having 5 contraptions attached to each other is cool and all, but having those abilities multiplied for each additional component gives it more of a "great machine" feeling. It grows exponentially with each piece you add.
It also makes you think about how you want to build your machine. The part you attach last has the greatest effect, so you want to save it. How long are you going to hold onto your bomb-component to try and get more out of it? Certain combos of tapping and untapping are only going to work if you play your components in the right order. All of this stuff makes the mechanic appealing to me and helps to separate it from just being "artifact equipment" like you guys were worried about.
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.
Probably not what you want. But here is my take on "Assembling a Contraption". I would never use it though outside of a one-off joke card. But I guess everyone has a Rigger or two they have designed.
Rigger's Robot Maker 3R
Creature Rigger
Sacrifice an artifact, tap: Assemble [Assemble - Contraption] Exile three target artifacts with different names from your graveyard. Put a token of a random card exiled on the battlefield. It is a Contraption in addition to its other types.
1/1
The random effects and different names are to stop Sundering Titan tricks, though dont know how effective it would be? Probably not very hard to break in constructed, but a bit harder than Goblin Tinkerer.
The part you attach last has the greatest effect, so you want to save it. How long are you going to hold onto your bomb-component to try and get more out of it? Certain combos of tapping and untapping are only going to work if you play your components in the right order. All of this stuff makes the mechanic appealing to me and helps to separate it from just being "artifact equipment" like you guys were worried about.
Isn't this what made the wisdom mechanic from Kamigawa block a failure? Players don't want to wait. They want to use their contraptions now.
Also, no love for the examples I posted? I think they're a lot simpler than these, yet still fun to play with.
I like the whole chain concept, confusing though it may be. Assemble definitely needs another reword to make piles of cards less confusing, though. If you stick Artifact A under Artifact B, which in turn is under Contraption C, does that mean that they are both attached to C, or is A attached to B and B is attached to C? It's pretty ambiguous unless assemble says that you can only attach something that isn't already attached to a contraption, that way you can get a nice chain going while making it a little simpler. (there should also be an example of this in the full version of the flavor text, since most contraptions seem like they have enough space to accommodate it and not everyone gets the full implication of attaching at first glance)
I'll also say that attach should work the other way, i.e. the contraptions attach to the other artifact, like every other card enhancer in Magic ever. If we leave the text the way it is, people will be able and willing to attach every artifact they have to every contraption they have, and it will all be incomprehensible. If contraptions assemble the way artifacts equip, it will prevent this sort of shenanigan.
(And as I wrote that, I kept using the word "attach" for the fancy new mechanic called "assemble." The verb in the reminder text should also be "assemble")
The problem I have is that it doesn't make any sense. Why would I be able to attach a Darksteel Axe, Lux Cannon, and Wurmcoil Engine to a contraption? It's a lot easier to make flavorful addons to artifacts then it is to make something you can have be attached to by all kinds of random artifacts.
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.
@Basic Land Collector
I actually do like them, but I don't know if I'm willing to go back to that design. I really like the Rube Goldberg angle we're taking; it just needs to be polished.
I feel like we're moving back into "artifact equipment" territory. Personally, I'm fine with that, but I thought everyone else wanted to make it more unique.
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.
Isn't this what made the wisdom mechanic from Kamigawa block a failure? Players don't want to wait. They want to use their contraptions now.
You don't have to wait because the things you want on the end of the chain cost more, so you won't be able to cast or assemble them until you hopefully already have something assembled.
You can also reorder the chain by disassembling and then reassembling...... or can you? What does everyone think about "disassemble?" I personally don't think it should exist (and it wasn't on the Flogger, so it doesn't have to)
I'd say the main polishing is on balancing and making good reminder text for the many contraptions that will probably have room for it to make contraption chaining clear. (and make sure you can only assemble to something without a contraption, because that's needlessly complicated)
@Basic Land Collector
I actually do like them, but I don't know if I'm willing to go back to that design. I really like the Rube Goldberg angle we're taking; it just needs to be polished.
My problem with that design though, is that they feel less like contraptions and more like components. A contraption should feel like a contraption all by itself. A player should be able to read a contraption card and have it feel like a contraption. If you need to chain multiples of them together to make it feel like a contraption, then its more like a component. An artifact that likes to have components added to it feels like a contraption. A component of a contraption feels like, well, a component.
I feel like we're moving back into "artifact equipment" territory. Personally, I'm fine with that, but I thought everyone else wanted to make it more unique.
I still do. I like the idea of the entire Contraption acting as a unit and each component attaching to each other, but I agree with you that this could be a rules headache (tapping, targeting, etc.). How could we make this work? We're already halfway there with the idea of "chaining" artifacts together.
My problem with that design though, is that they feel less like contraptions and more like components. A contraption should feel like a contraption all by itself. If you need to chain multiples of them together to make it feel like a contraption, then its more like a component. A player should be able to read a contraption card and have it feel like a contraption. An artifact that likes to have components added to it feels like a contraption. A component of a contraption feels like, well, a component.
And I wholeheartedly agree with this, too. Why can't we disassociate the "Contraption" subtype from cards and apply it to artifacts attached to one another?
My problem with that design though, is that they feel less like contraptions and more like components. A contraption should feel like a contraption all by itself. A player should be able to read a contraption card and have it feel like a contraption. If you need to chain multiples of them together to make it feel like a contraption, then its more like a component. An artifact that likes to have components added to it feels like a contraption. A component of a contraption feels like, well, a component.
The problem is that you're not adding components to it, you're adding Darksteel Axes and Lux Cannons and Horizon Spellbombs. Why does it not matter what I attach to my contraption? A contraption is really just a collection of parts, so shouldn't it be the parts that determine what it does?
Who knows, maybe we name each piece a component, and the whole thing is referred to as a contraption. I'd be fine with that. Like I said, i'd much rather design something good than stick to Steamflogger Boss' newage lingo
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.
And I wholeheartedly agree with this, too. Why can't we disassociate the "Contraption" subtype from cards and apply it to artifacts attached to one another?
Because it's already defined in the rules and a subtype and would be needlessly complicated? There's a reason Banding was obsoleted and I feel that we're heading in that direction with MOON-E's design (no offense). I'm a Johnny through and through, but even I am finding this design incredibly confusing in certain situations. It should be noted that the target audience for sets in general are casual players, most of which are Timmys. I feel that the design I'm arguing for (who came up with it first? I know it wasn't me :p) is a lot simpler while still conveying a similar, and therefore more fun for the casual. It also leaves room to design cards that can chain for combo players.
Who knows, maybe we name each piece a component, and the whole thing is referred to as a contraption. I'd be fine with that. Like I said, i'd much rather design something good than stick to Steamflogger Boss' newage lingo
Perhaps what we're finding out here (especially since our contraptions don't work with Steamflogger Boss) is that we don't actually want to use contraptions at all. Maybe components is what we should be working on, and just let the group of components be just that. There's no need to name the chain, in my mind.
I know I'd feel a lot better discarding a simple component to my spellslingers than an entire contraption. It feels more like recycled parts that way.
Anyway, I'm willing to give up my chain-link idea, but I still will fight for the components attaching to artifacts and not the other way around. For me, it makes much more sense from both a flavor and a gameplay standpoint.
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.
Doesn't my mechanic also allow contraptions to be used on their own, given incentive to assemble, and tap independently of the artifact they're attached to?
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 didn't think it did... <rereads the post> IDK. As I understood your post, the contraptions lost their abilities and gave them to the attached artifact. But I guess I was wrong.
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)
Hm, I didn't think it was that complicated, but perhaps I didn't explain it well.
Each artifact in the contraption gives it's abilities to the one it's attached to, but keeps it's own. For example. If I equip Grindstone Gearbox to a Kraken's Eye, Gearbox will have it's ability, and the Eye will have it's original ability plus the ability of the gearbox.
Now, if I attach Goldengear Generator to the Gearbox, it gives it's abilities to the gearbox which in turn gives them to the Eye.
It sounds confusing, but makes sense when you see it. Normally, when you equip something, you put the card behind it and slightly above. With assembly, you do the same thing, so you end up with a stack of cards that makes it easy to see what's going on. Like this:
v Goldengear Generator
v Grindstone Gearbox
Kraken's Eye
Each card has the abilities of the ones above it and it's own. Simple, see? I guess I just didn't explain it well.
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
Simple in concept, but probably too complex in execution?
Is it? TBH, I don't think it's that complex, but I made it, so I obviously have a biased opinion.
This idea came to me mainly because we're going to run into this problem: almost everyone stacks equipment behind the creature. If you have multiple equipment, you just put them one after another. But with contraptions, the third one could be attached to the first, or the second because both are legal targets. Rather than create this confusion, why not encourage people to stack their contraptions?
I don't know, maybe I just like the idea of having a big contraption chain.
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
Artifact - Contraption
:symtap:: You gain life equal to the number of artifacts attached to ~ plus 1.
Assemble 1 (1: Attach target noncreature artifact you control to this permanent. Assemble only as a sorcery.)
Grindstone Mechanism (2/U)
Artifact - Contraption
~ and artifacts attached to ~ have ":symtap:: Target player puts the top 2 cards of his or her library into his or her graveyard."
Assemble 2 (2: Attach target noncreature artifact you control to this permanent. Assemble only as a sorcery.)
Explosive Conglomeration (2/R)(2/R)
Artifact - Contraption
Sacrifice ~: ~ deals damage to target creature or player equal to 2 plus 2 for each Contraption and/or Equipment (that was ?) attached to ~.
Assemble (2/R)(2/R) ((2/R)(2/R): Attach target noncreature artifact you control to this permanent. Assemble only as a sorcery.)
Steam Boiler 2
Artifact - Contraption
Tap ~ or an untapped artifact attached to ~: Add 1 to your mana pool.
Assemble 2 (2: Attach target noncreature artifact you control to this permanent. Assemble only as a sorcery.)
Gadget Collector 4
Artifact Creature - Contraption Construct
~ gets +1/+1 for each artifact attached to it.
Assemble 2 (2: Attach target noncreature artifact you control to this permanent. Assemble only as a sorcery.)
Ok, I see what you mean, but can you attach permanents to permanents already attaching to another permanent? I didn't think you could. IDK Wouldn't a better solution be to only allow contraptions to attach to artifacts not already attached to another permanent? like this...
Grindstone Gearbox > Kraken's Eye < Goldengear Generator
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)
"Attach this to target unassembled artifact." It could work.
I like it.
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 works, but it's not as fun IMO.
Having the ability carry over makes it naturally scaling. You don't need to add another line saying the bonus you get for assembling; the bonus is obvious because you get to carry the ability over! I also like it because it scales well the more you have. Sure, having 5 contraptions attached to each other is cool and all, but having those abilities multiplied for each additional component gives it more of a "great machine" feeling. It grows exponentially with each piece you add.
It also makes you think about how you want to build your machine. The part you attach last has the greatest effect, so you want to save it. How long are you going to hold onto your bomb-component to try and get more out of it? Certain combos of tapping and untapping are only going to work if you play your components in the right order. All of this stuff makes the mechanic appealing to me and helps to separate it from just being "artifact equipment" like you guys were worried about.
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
Rigger's Robot Maker
3R
Creature Rigger
Sacrifice an artifact, tap: Assemble [Assemble - Contraption] Exile three target artifacts with different names from your graveyard. Put a token of a random card exiled on the battlefield. It is a Contraption in addition to its other types.
1/1
The random effects and different names are to stop Sundering Titan tricks, though dont know how effective it would be? Probably not very hard to break in constructed, but a bit harder than Goblin Tinkerer.
Magic Work Station Winston-180 http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=315755
Isn't this what made the wisdom mechanic from Kamigawa block a failure? Players don't want to wait. They want to use their contraptions now.
Also, no love for the examples I posted? I think they're a lot simpler than these, yet still fun to play with.
I'll also say that attach should work the other way, i.e. the contraptions attach to the other artifact, like every other card enhancer in Magic ever. If we leave the text the way it is, people will be able and willing to attach every artifact they have to every contraption they have, and it will all be incomprehensible. If contraptions assemble the way artifacts equip, it will prevent this sort of shenanigan.
(And as I wrote that, I kept using the word "attach" for the fancy new mechanic called "assemble." The verb in the reminder text should also be "assemble")
MOON-E said it pretty well earlier...
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)
Except you can't attach a Wurmcoil Engine to them.
Close enough.
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's the problem for me....
@Basic Land Collector
I actually do like them, but I don't know if I'm willing to go back to that design. I really like the Rube Goldberg angle we're taking; it just needs to be polished.
Aw man, that was my favorite part...
I feel like we're moving back into "artifact equipment" territory. Personally, I'm fine with that, but I thought everyone else wanted to make it more unique.
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
You don't have to wait because the things you want on the end of the chain cost more, so you won't be able to cast or assemble them until you hopefully already have something assembled.
You can also reorder the chain by disassembling and then reassembling...... or can you? What does everyone think about "disassemble?" I personally don't think it should exist (and it wasn't on the Flogger, so it doesn't have to)
I'd say the main polishing is on balancing and making good reminder text for the many contraptions that will probably have room for it to make contraption chaining clear. (and make sure you can only assemble to something without a contraption, because that's needlessly complicated)
My problem with that design though, is that they feel less like contraptions and more like components. A contraption should feel like a contraption all by itself. A player should be able to read a contraption card and have it feel like a contraption. If you need to chain multiples of them together to make it feel like a contraption, then its more like a component. An artifact that likes to have components added to it feels like a contraption. A component of a contraption feels like, well, a component.
I still do. I like the idea of the entire Contraption acting as a unit and each component attaching to each other, but I agree with you that this could be a rules headache (tapping, targeting, etc.). How could we make this work? We're already halfway there with the idea of "chaining" artifacts together.
And I wholeheartedly agree with this, too. Why can't we disassociate the "Contraption" subtype from cards and apply it to artifacts attached to one another?
The problem is that you're not adding components to it, you're adding Darksteel Axes and Lux Cannons and Horizon Spellbombs. Why does it not matter what I attach to my contraption? A contraption is really just a collection of parts, so shouldn't it be the parts that determine what it does?
Who knows, maybe we name each piece a component, and the whole thing is referred to as a contraption. I'd be fine with that. Like I said, i'd much rather design something good than stick to Steamflogger Boss' newage lingo
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
Because it's already defined in the rules and a subtype and would be needlessly complicated? There's a reason Banding was obsoleted and I feel that we're heading in that direction with MOON-E's design (no offense). I'm a Johnny through and through, but even I am finding this design incredibly confusing in certain situations. It should be noted that the target audience for sets in general are casual players, most of which are Timmys. I feel that the design I'm arguing for (who came up with it first? I know it wasn't me :p) is a lot simpler while still conveying a similar, and therefore more fun for the casual. It also leaves room to design cards that can chain for combo players.
Perhaps what we're finding out here (especially since our contraptions don't work with Steamflogger Boss) is that we don't actually want to use contraptions at all. Maybe components is what we should be working on, and just let the group of components be just that. There's no need to name the chain, in my mind.
I know I'd feel a lot better discarding a simple component to my spellslingers than an entire contraption. It feels more like recycled parts that way.
Anyway, I'm willing to give up my chain-link idea, but I still will fight for the components attaching to artifacts and not the other way around. For me, it makes much more sense from both a flavor and a gameplay standpoint.
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
Also, does anyone else feel like we're going in circles?
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)