It's not supposed to be doing the same job as banding, no more so than Levitation or Fervor. I fail to see what banding has anything to do with Transports. Transports are a tweak on Equipment that lets you apply a particular effect to multiple creatures. Not all Transports are even combat related; you can apply utility effects like looting and lifegain, just the same as with Equipment. Why are you even comparing Transports to banding to begin with?
Because it plays in the same space as banding (and soulbond to a much lesser extent). If the creatures can attack and block individually when they are in a "vehicle", it is a massive flavor failure, and if they attack and block as a group, then it is essentially banding, but much weaker and moved to a separate card (not necessarily a bad thing, mind you.)
Without it, it is basically worse global enchantments that affect your creatures.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's about time for the reserved list to die, for the sake of Vintage and Legacy (And Commander).
The main problem I have in seeing vehicles as equipments is that a veichle generally needs a pilot.
While the "equipped" creature is piloting, how could she efficiently attack or cast spells?
That is, unless the vehicle is automated, in that case it can very well be an artifact creature with an "equip" ability.
Yet, for that we already have "lving weapon" which has a very similar niche... Or Bestow, for that matters...
With a wording like "x Pilot (attach (vehicle name) to target not piloting creature you control, (vehicle name) becomes an artifact - vehicle as long as a creature is piloting it, pilot only as a sorcery)"
Then a line "Piloting creature gets xxxxxxx"
It could work and it seems simple enough.
Except, that is equipment. The proposed "Vehicles" work exactly opposite of Equipment, instead of the artifact getting attached to a creature, the creature(s) get attached to the "vehicle."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's about time for the reserved list to die, for the sake of Vintage and Legacy (And Commander).
I know, but attaching a vehicle to a creature can be made to work similar to attaching an aura or another equipment. Allowing you to swing with your creature, ecc...
Might seem strange at first, but is probably simpler than attacking with a vehicle with a creature attached.
We also already have some equipments that would actually be "vehicles" in ral life (if they existed): Kitesail, Neurok Hoversail, Warmonger's Chariot and Chariot of Victory are all means of trnsportation rather than weapons/armours/accessories. So, having a "vehicle" attached to a creature would be nothing new.
What you suggest makes it functionally no different from equipment, and thus pointless in the context of the game. It is adding complexity for no gain.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's about time for the reserved list to die, for the sake of Vintage and Legacy (And Commander).
This post from today on Blogatog is also coherent with the theory I've presented in the OP, and in my opinion it's even more proof.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MCC - Winner (6): Oct 2014, Apr Nov 2017, Jan 2018, Apr Jun 2019 || Host (15): Dec 2014, Apr Jul Aug Dec 2015, Mar Jul Aug Oct 2016, Feb Jul 2017, Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) || Judge (34): every month from Nov 2014 to Nov 2016 except Oct 2015, every month from Feb to Jul 2017 except Apr 2017, then Oct 2017, May Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) CCL - Winner (3): Jul 2016 (tied with Flatline), May 2017, Jul 2019 (last one here) || Host (5): Feb 2015, Mar Apr May Jun 2016 DCC - Winner (1): Mar 2015 (tied with Piar) || Host (3): May Oct 2015, Jan 2016
• The two public custom sets I've been part a part of the design team for: "Brotherhood of Ormos" - Blog post with all info - set thread - design skeleton / card list || "Extinctia: Homo Evanuit" - Blog post with all info - set thread - card list spreadsheet
• "The Lion's Lair", my article series about MTG and custom card design in particular. Latest article here. Here is the article index.Rather outdated by now, and based on the old MCC rubric, but I'm leaving this here for anybody that might be interested anyway.
• My only public attempt at being a writer: the story of my Leonin custom planeswalker Jeff Lionheart. (I have a very big one that I'm working on right now but that's private for now, and I don't know if I will ever actually publish it, and I also have ideas for multiple future ones, including one where I'm going to reprise Jeff.)
This post from today on Blogatog is also coherent with the theory I've presented in the OP, and in my opinion it's even more proof.
All the post you linked to proves is that it is not a returning mechanic, and it is something they haven't done before. Everything else is just conjecture.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's about time for the reserved list to die, for the sake of Vintage and Legacy (And Commander).
I know, but attaching a vehicle to a creature can be made to work similar to attaching an aura or another equipment. Allowing you to swing with your creature, ecc...
Might seem strange at first, but is probably simpler than attacking with a vehicle with a creature attached.
We also already have some equipments that would actually be "vehicles" in ral life (if they existed): Kitesail, Neurok Hoversail, Warmonger's Chariot and Chariot of Victory are all means of trnsportation rather than weapons/armours/accessories. So, having a "vehicle" attached to a creature would be nothing new.
What you suggest makes it functionally no different from equipment, and thus pointless in the context of the game. It is adding complexity for no gain.
Yet they added Living Weapon as an added effect on some equipments. Having an artifact creature turning into an equipment is not that different, neither that more complex.
But adding a new subtype to the game, when it doesn't make a mechanical difference, *is* adding complexity for no, or at least marginal, gain. At least Living Weapon made a token creature that the equipment auto-attached to.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's about time for the reserved list to die, for the sake of Vintage and Legacy (And Commander).
This post from today on Blogatog is also coherent with the theory I've presented in the OP, and in my opinion it's even more proof.
All the post you linked to proves is that it is not a returning mechanic, and it is something they haven't done before. Everything else is just conjecture.
That's why I posted my idea in Speculation and not anywhere else.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MCC - Winner (6): Oct 2014, Apr Nov 2017, Jan 2018, Apr Jun 2019 || Host (15): Dec 2014, Apr Jul Aug Dec 2015, Mar Jul Aug Oct 2016, Feb Jul 2017, Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) || Judge (34): every month from Nov 2014 to Nov 2016 except Oct 2015, every month from Feb to Jul 2017 except Apr 2017, then Oct 2017, May Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) CCL - Winner (3): Jul 2016 (tied with Flatline), May 2017, Jul 2019 (last one here) || Host (5): Feb 2015, Mar Apr May Jun 2016 DCC - Winner (1): Mar 2015 (tied with Piar) || Host (3): May Oct 2015, Jan 2016
• The two public custom sets I've been part a part of the design team for: "Brotherhood of Ormos" - Blog post with all info - set thread - design skeleton / card list || "Extinctia: Homo Evanuit" - Blog post with all info - set thread - card list spreadsheet
• "The Lion's Lair", my article series about MTG and custom card design in particular. Latest article here. Here is the article index.Rather outdated by now, and based on the old MCC rubric, but I'm leaving this here for anybody that might be interested anyway.
• My only public attempt at being a writer: the story of my Leonin custom planeswalker Jeff Lionheart. (I have a very big one that I'm working on right now but that's private for now, and I don't know if I will ever actually publish it, and I also have ideas for multiple future ones, including one where I'm going to reprise Jeff.)
This post from today on Blogatog is also coherent with the theory I've presented in the OP, and in my opinion it's even more proof.
All the post you linked to proves is that it is not a returning mechanic, and it is something they haven't done before. Everything else is just conjecture.
That's why I posted my idea in Speculation and not anywhere else.
Ah, but you presented it in your previous post as proof of your theory, which it quite clearly is not.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's about time for the reserved list to die, for the sake of Vintage and Legacy (And Commander).
I know, but attaching a vehicle to a creature can be made to work similar to attaching an aura or another equipment. Allowing you to swing with your creature, ecc...
Might seem strange at first, but is probably simpler than attacking with a vehicle with a creature attached.
We also already have some equipments that would actually be "vehicles" in ral life (if they existed): Kitesail, Neurok Hoversail, Warmonger's Chariot and Chariot of Victory are all means of trnsportation rather than weapons/armours/accessories. So, having a "vehicle" attached to a creature would be nothing new.
What you suggest makes it functionally no different from equipment, and thus pointless in the context of the game. It is adding complexity for no gain.
That in and of itself should not disqualify the idea. There is something to be said about adding flavor to the battlefield. I had an idea once about a mechanic called 'Burrowing/Tunneling'. It would pretty much be 'Flying/Reach' for underground creatures, but it would add a third layer to combat. Now, creatures could battle in the air, on the ground, and under it. Imagine that in a set inspired by 'Dune'.
I know, but attaching a vehicle to a creature can be made to work similar to attaching an aura or another equipment. Allowing you to swing with your creature, ecc...
Might seem strange at first, but is probably simpler than attacking with a vehicle with a creature attached.
We also already have some equipments that would actually be "vehicles" in ral life (if they existed): Kitesail, Neurok Hoversail, Warmonger's Chariot and Chariot of Victory are all means of trnsportation rather than weapons/armours/accessories. So, having a "vehicle" attached to a creature would be nothing new.
What you suggest makes it functionally no different from equipment, and thus pointless in the context of the game. It is adding complexity for no gain.
That in and of itself should not disqualify the idea. There is something to be said about adding flavor to the battlefield. I had an idea once about a mechanic called 'Burrowing/Tunneling'. It would pretty much be 'Flying/Reach' for underground creatures, but it would add a third layer to combat. Now, creatures could battle in the air, on the ground, and under it. Imagine that in a set inspired by 'Dune'.
More like a fifth layer, accounting for Shadow and Horsemanship.
See, the thing is, with evasion abilities you are not really adding complexity in the same way, as you are opening up design space, just take Shadow as an example. Shadow creatures are nearly always tiny, only exist in three colors, and allow for huge design options in not only the colors the mechanic exists in, but also the two colors it does not. Imagine for example a green spider that not only has reach, but is also able to "catch" creatures with shadow. Tempest used the mechanic quite well.
Horsemanship on the other hand, was basically just a replacement for flying, but it still allowed a few interesting designs outside of the mechanic itself. Such as Rolling Earthquake, but it was still just Flying with another name, which is probably why it was never used outside of P3K.
Your suggested "Vehicle" mechanic does not do this, it is in essence just Equipment with another name, adding complexity for no mechanical gain. Indeed, it reduces the usefulness of multiple cards that care about equipment, while essentially doing the exact same thing as equipment. Much like Flying and Horsemanship.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's about time for the reserved list to die, for the sake of Vintage and Legacy (And Commander).
It's not supposed to be doing the same job as banding, no more so than Levitation or Fervor. I fail to see what banding has anything to do with Transports. Transports are a tweak on Equipment that lets you apply a particular effect to multiple creatures. Not all Transports are even combat related; you can apply utility effects like looting and lifegain, just the same as with Equipment. Why are you even comparing Transports to banding to begin with?
Because it plays in the same space as banding (and soulbond to a much lesser extent). If the creatures can attack and block individually when they are in a "vehicle", it is a massive flavor failure, and if they attack and block as a group, then it is essentially banding, but much weaker and moved to a separate card (not necessarily a bad thing, mind you.)
Without it, it is basically worse global enchantments that affect your creatures.
Just because two creatures are aboard the same Transport does not mean they both have to attack or block, so no, it isn't a massive flavor failure. Granted, some Transports grant abilities that support attacking, like Trample or Haste, and so creatures aboard those Transports generally will want to attack. Some Transports may force onboard creatures to attack or block.
The main benefit of Transports over global enchantments is color accessibility; a monowhite deck can't use Fervor, but it can use a Pirate Sloop that grants haste. Another benefit is flavorful interaction; in a Pirate set, you could have Transport Ships that certain cards care about, like tribal captains that grant benefits to each creature aboard their Ship. For that matter, you can have creatures care about being aboard Ships and other Transports.
On that note, I would make Transports matter a WU thing. It'd be a nice contrast to RW Equipment.
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.
It's not supposed to be doing the same job as banding, no more so than Levitation or Fervor. I fail to see what banding has anything to do with Transports. Transports are a tweak on Equipment that lets you apply a particular effect to multiple creatures. Not all Transports are even combat related; you can apply utility effects like looting and lifegain, just the same as with Equipment. Why are you even comparing Transports to banding to begin with?
Because it plays in the same space as banding (and soulbond to a much lesser extent). If the creatures can attack and block individually when they are in a "vehicle", it is a massive flavor failure, and if they attack and block as a group, then it is essentially banding, but much weaker and moved to a separate card (not necessarily a bad thing, mind you.)
Without it, it is basically worse global enchantments that affect your creatures.
Just because two creatures are aboard the same Transport does not mean they both have to attack or block, so no, it isn't a massive flavor failure. Granted, some Transports grant abilities that support attacking, like Trample or Haste, and so creatures aboard those Transports generally will want to attack. Some Transports may force onboard creatures to attack or block.
The main benefit of Transports over global enchantments is color accessibility; a monowhite deck can't use Fervor, but it can use a Pirate Sloop that grants haste. Another benefit is flavorful interaction; in a Pirate set, you could have Transport Ships that certain cards care about, like tribal captains that grant benefits to each creature aboard their Ship. For that matter, you can have creatures care about being aboard Ships and other Transports.
On that note, I would make Transports matter a WU thing. It'd be a nice contrast to RW Equipment.
That doesn't make any logical sense at all. If the creatures aren't attacking as one, what is the point of transports to begin with? Also, granting colors access to abilities in bulk that they should not have access to leads to poor gameplay. Let's say I play a monogreen deck, but thanks to vehicles, I can grant all my creatures flying and first strike. Yeah, not a good idea. Giving an individual creature a keyword ability not usually found in its color(s) with the help of equipment is one thing, but granting all creatures you control of that color(s) such an ability without access to the color(s) the ability is found in, is very, very, very unbalanced.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's about time for the reserved list to die, for the sake of Vintage and Legacy (And Commander).
What if double faced cards are evergreen... it would let them do two state effects in different ways in different sets.
You could have a riderless vehicle (with a cost to flip) and a driven vehicle. You could have monstrous (as we see with the werewolves). It opens up so much different design space (the difference would be the way things flip and the flavour it is enhancing.
Another idea is that vehicle mechanic that people are taking about is a lot like champion...
Flavor. Giving wagons, ships, and the like their own flavorful subtype is more satisfying than simply making them big, expensive Equipment.
Evolution of Equipment dynamics. Beyond changing the creature-equipment ratio around in a fascinating manner, you open up room for new Transports matter mechanics that wouldn't exist for global enchantments or their traditional artifact counterparts.
Consider that you have to pay more mana to give all your creatures flying in green than you would have to do in blue. Yeah, Maro says higher mana costs alone are not justification for color pie breaks, but the fact is Equipment are costed higher than Aura equivalents both because they have more staying ability and they grant any color access to abilities normally found in specific colors.
You expect Transports to be a variant of banding somehow, yet banding was a chiefly white ability.
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.
When creatures are on board a vehicle or a transport, they do not attack. Only the vehicle or transport attacks. The specific creature can alter the overall characteristics of the vehicle. Imagine soldiers in a tank. There would be no way for one soldier to attack another while inside the tank.
As for the flavor fail of Emrakul riding a vehicle. Vehicles could have a 'weight limit'. Say a max CMC. You can gave one or more creature board a vehicle, but the combined CMC of those creatures cannot exceed the 'weight limit'.
Flavor. Giving wagons, ships, and the like their own flavorful subtype is more satisfying than simply making them big, expensive Equipment.
Evolution of Equipment dynamics. Beyond changing the creature-equipment ratio around in a fascinating manner, you open up room for new Transports matter mechanics that wouldn't exist for global enchantments or their traditional artifact counterparts.
Consider that you have to pay more mana to give all your creatures flying in green than you would have to do in blue. Yeah, Maro says higher mana costs alone are not justification for color pie breaks, but the fact is Equipment are costed higher than Aura equivalents both because they have more staying ability and they grant any color access to abilities normally found in specific colors.
You expect Transports to be a variant of banding somehow, yet banding was a chiefly white ability.
Akroma's Memorial and Eldrazi Monument are both mythic, Cauldron of Souls was from a set where -1/-1 counters matter (and persist exists in all five colors), Dragon Thrown of Tarkir does nothing that any of the colors can not do on their own to larger or smaller degree, and as for Gruul War Plow, Trample exists in all five colors, although it is Tetriary in white and black.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's about time for the reserved list to die, for the sake of Vintage and Legacy (And Commander).
Flavor. Giving wagons, ships, and the like their own flavorful subtype is more satisfying than simply making them big, expensive Equipment.
Evolution of Equipment dynamics. Beyond changing the creature-equipment ratio around in a fascinating manner, you open up room for new Transports matter mechanics that wouldn't exist for global enchantments or their traditional artifact counterparts.
Consider that you have to pay more mana to give all your creatures flying in green than you would have to do in blue. Yeah, Maro says higher mana costs alone are not justification for color pie breaks, but the fact is Equipment are costed higher than Aura equivalents both because they have more staying ability and they grant any color access to abilities normally found in specific colors.
You expect Transports to be a variant of banding somehow, yet banding was a chiefly white ability.
Akroma's Memorial and Eldrazi Monument are both mythic, Cauldron of Souls was from a set where -1/-1 counters matter (and persist exists in all five colors), Dragon Thrown of Tarkir does nothing that any of the colors can not do on their own to larger or smaller degree, and as for Gruul War Plow, Trample exists in all five colors, although it is Tetriary in white and black.
Correction: Trample is tertiary in white, blue, and black, just as Flying is tertiary in black and red and quarternary in green.
Maro has stated it's okay if colors use artifacts to stretch outside their pie as long as those artifacts aren't doing another color's job better. A 3-mana ship that grants flying and requires 1 mana per passenger is not unbalanced as Levitate is still superior in most blue decks.
At any rate, Transports aren't the kind of card I see showing up often at common, but I could see them showing up semi-frequently at uncommon and higher. Beyond bottom-up blocks, which have looser flavor restrictions than top-down, I could see Pirate and Western blocks both featuring Transports, along with any top-down setting that would prominently feature ships, carts, dirigibles, or other forms of transportation.
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.
The original mention of Vehicle was this comment from the M-files on Choking Restraints:
MDT: I like the change. It might be confusing for new players, but it's a cool moment once they realize that it helps with delirium (and maybe even helps turn off opponent's vehicles in casual Constructed).
The change she talks about is the addition of the sac-to-exile-enchanted-creature ability.
So from this we could perhaps deduce that hitting a creature with a Pacifism-effect alone does not shut down vehicles, while exiling a creature may do so.
I'll guess that vehicles are all artifact creatures with activated abilities of the type: "Tap an untapped creature you control: [effect]"
or, that they have a keyword, let's call it "Engage", where "Engage:X" means "This creature cannot attack or block unless you tap X untapped creatures you control".
So far the idea of artifacts that equip them with creatures instead of the other way around makes for the most realistic sounding and easy to understand mechanic, the rest seems to complex or uninspiring.
But regardless of whether that is what vehicles would do, what would the vehicle itself do? How do you convey mechanically what it does when say, a bear rides a bike through the battlefield instead of walking?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The secret to enjoyable Commander games is not winning first, but losing last.
If my post has no tags, then i posted from my phone.
I figure vehicles simply grant bonuses the way Equipment do, but can do so to several creatures at once. Let's say your creatures ride a fast ship; that ship grants haste to all creatures on board. An airship would grant flying, a covered wagon could grant hexproof, a warmachine could greant trample, etc.
I still think Transport would make a better name, as vehicles generally refer to carts, wagons, and the like while vessels refer to ships. Dirigibles and such would technically be aircraft, but since they share a lot of stylistic cues with vessels, calling them such wouldn't feel too far-fetched. Vehicles and vessels are both forms of transportation, hence my suggestion of Transport as a catch-all.
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.
Flavor. Giving wagons, ships, and the like their own flavorful subtype is more satisfying than simply making them big, expensive Equipment.
Evolution of Equipment dynamics. Beyond changing the creature-equipment ratio around in a fascinating manner, you open up room for new Transports matter mechanics that wouldn't exist for global enchantments or their traditional artifact counterparts.
Consider that you have to pay more mana to give all your creatures flying in green than you would have to do in blue. Yeah, Maro says higher mana costs alone are not justification for color pie breaks, but the fact is Equipment are costed higher than Aura equivalents both because they have more staying ability and they grant any color access to abilities normally found in specific colors.
You expect Transports to be a variant of banding somehow, yet banding was a chiefly white ability.
Akroma's Memorial and Eldrazi Monument are both mythic, Cauldron of Souls was from a set where -1/-1 counters matter (and persist exists in all five colors), Dragon Thrown of Tarkir does nothing that any of the colors can not do on their own to larger or smaller degree, and as for Gruul War Plow, Trample exists in all five colors, although it is Tetriary in white and black.
Correction: Trample is tertiary in white, blue, and black, just as Flying is tertiary in black and red and quarternary in green.
Maro has stated it's okay if colors use artifacts to stretch outside their pie as long as those artifacts aren't doing another color's job better. A 3-mana ship that grants flying and requires 1 mana per passenger is not unbalanced as Levitate is still superior in most blue decks.
At any rate, Transports aren't the kind of card I see showing up often at common, but I could see them showing up semi-frequently at uncommon and higher. Beyond bottom-up blocks, which have looser flavor restrictions than top-down, I could see Pirate and Western blocks both featuring Transports, along with any top-down setting that would prominently feature ships, carts, dirigibles, or other forms of transportation.
Flying is secondary in black as it exists at all rarities in pretty much every block. But we are arguing semantics. And your suggested "vehicle" that grants flying is overpowered in both red and green, giving them easy access to an ability they should not have.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's about time for the reserved list to die, for the sake of Vintage and Legacy (And Commander).
Except they already do have it in the form of Dragons and in red's case Phoenixes. Not to mention several Equipment that grant flying already exist. And if a Transport granting flying is really such a big deal, then don't make a Transport that grants flying (though that's a terrible loss of a resonant trope).
The comment on Choking Restraints does make me wonder though if there's merit to the theories about vehicles being artifacts that can do stuff as long as a creature is riding them. Of course, Kaladesh was still in design when these comments were made, so it's possible the vehicle mechanic has undergone some changes since the time of that comment.
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.
I love that several pages have gone by where a guy fervently defends his made up mechanic as if it's real. And yes, it is a massive flavour fail if two creatures are on the same "transport" both receiving the same bonus but they don't need to attack or block together. How exactly does that work? What you basically have here is equipment that can be used by multiple creatures, which seems like a decent idea but has some serious issues I won't bother to go in to here. I'm not sure why you insist on giving it this "transport" flavour, which completely falls apart when all creatures "on board" somehow aren't required to attack and block together.
I still think Transport would make a better name, as vehicles generally refer to carts, wagons, and the like while vessels refer to ships. Dirigibles and such would technically be aircraft, but since they share a lot of stylistic cues with vessels, calling them such wouldn't feel too far-fetched. Vehicles and vessels are both forms of transportation, hence my suggestion of Transport as a catch-all.
A tank is a vehicle, but isn't really thought of as a transport. Its purpose is more security than movement. Does it get you from A to B, yes, but quite inefficiently.
If the mechanic is vehicles, they likely have a maximum capacity, and hopefully ramp with number of creatures inside them. And though I think the mechanic is sound, I haven't seen anything so far that seems very convincing about it. Perhaps because there's a piece we're still missing. But so far the guesses about it seem to be akin to Champion or regular Equipment. We have seen a few vehicles in the art for Kaladesh so far, so thematically it does seem to make more sense than on previous planes, but it doesn't seem by any means certain yet.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Because it plays in the same space as banding (and soulbond to a much lesser extent). If the creatures can attack and block individually when they are in a "vehicle", it is a massive flavor failure, and if they attack and block as a group, then it is essentially banding, but much weaker and moved to a separate card (not necessarily a bad thing, mind you.)
Without it, it is basically worse global enchantments that affect your creatures.
---
Numquam evolutioni obstes. Solum conculceris.
Pascite draconem, evolvite aut morimini.
Except, that is equipment. The proposed "Vehicles" work exactly opposite of Equipment, instead of the artifact getting attached to a creature, the creature(s) get attached to the "vehicle."
---
Numquam evolutioni obstes. Solum conculceris.
Pascite draconem, evolvite aut morimini.
What you suggest makes it functionally no different from equipment, and thus pointless in the context of the game. It is adding complexity for no gain.
---
Numquam evolutioni obstes. Solum conculceris.
Pascite draconem, evolvite aut morimini.
MCC - Winner (6): Oct 2014, Apr Nov 2017, Jan 2018, Apr Jun 2019 || Host (15): Dec 2014, Apr Jul Aug Dec 2015, Mar Jul Aug Oct 2016, Feb Jul 2017, Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) || Judge (34): every month from Nov 2014 to Nov 2016 except Oct 2015, every month from Feb to Jul 2017 except Apr 2017, then Oct 2017, May Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here)
CCL - Winner (3): Jul 2016 (tied with Flatline), May 2017, Jul 2019 (last one here) || Host (5): Feb 2015, Mar Apr May Jun 2016
DCC - Winner (1): Mar 2015 (tied with Piar) || Host (3): May Oct 2015, Jan 2016
• The two public custom sets I've been part a part of the design team for:
"Brotherhood of Ormos" - Blog post with all info - set thread - design skeleton / card list || "Extinctia: Homo Evanuit" - Blog post with all info - set thread - card list spreadsheet
• "The Lion's Lair", my article series about MTG and custom card design in particular. Latest article here. Here is the article index. Rather outdated by now, and based on the old MCC rubric, but I'm leaving this here for anybody that might be interested anyway.
• My only public attempt at being a writer: the story of my Leonin custom planeswalker Jeff Lionheart. (I have a very big one that I'm working on right now but that's private for now, and I don't know if I will ever actually publish it, and I also have ideas for multiple future ones, including one where I'm going to reprise Jeff.)
All the post you linked to proves is that it is not a returning mechanic, and it is something they haven't done before. Everything else is just conjecture.
---
Numquam evolutioni obstes. Solum conculceris.
Pascite draconem, evolvite aut morimini.
---
Numquam evolutioni obstes. Solum conculceris.
Pascite draconem, evolvite aut morimini.
That's why I posted my idea in Speculation and not anywhere else.
MCC - Winner (6): Oct 2014, Apr Nov 2017, Jan 2018, Apr Jun 2019 || Host (15): Dec 2014, Apr Jul Aug Dec 2015, Mar Jul Aug Oct 2016, Feb Jul 2017, Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) || Judge (34): every month from Nov 2014 to Nov 2016 except Oct 2015, every month from Feb to Jul 2017 except Apr 2017, then Oct 2017, May Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here)
CCL - Winner (3): Jul 2016 (tied with Flatline), May 2017, Jul 2019 (last one here) || Host (5): Feb 2015, Mar Apr May Jun 2016
DCC - Winner (1): Mar 2015 (tied with Piar) || Host (3): May Oct 2015, Jan 2016
• The two public custom sets I've been part a part of the design team for:
"Brotherhood of Ormos" - Blog post with all info - set thread - design skeleton / card list || "Extinctia: Homo Evanuit" - Blog post with all info - set thread - card list spreadsheet
• "The Lion's Lair", my article series about MTG and custom card design in particular. Latest article here. Here is the article index. Rather outdated by now, and based on the old MCC rubric, but I'm leaving this here for anybody that might be interested anyway.
• My only public attempt at being a writer: the story of my Leonin custom planeswalker Jeff Lionheart. (I have a very big one that I'm working on right now but that's private for now, and I don't know if I will ever actually publish it, and I also have ideas for multiple future ones, including one where I'm going to reprise Jeff.)
Ah, but you presented it in your previous post as proof of your theory, which it quite clearly is not.
---
Numquam evolutioni obstes. Solum conculceris.
Pascite draconem, evolvite aut morimini.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
That in and of itself should not disqualify the idea. There is something to be said about adding flavor to the battlefield. I had an idea once about a mechanic called 'Burrowing/Tunneling'. It would pretty much be 'Flying/Reach' for underground creatures, but it would add a third layer to combat. Now, creatures could battle in the air, on the ground, and under it. Imagine that in a set inspired by 'Dune'.
More like a fifth layer, accounting for Shadow and Horsemanship.
See, the thing is, with evasion abilities you are not really adding complexity in the same way, as you are opening up design space, just take Shadow as an example. Shadow creatures are nearly always tiny, only exist in three colors, and allow for huge design options in not only the colors the mechanic exists in, but also the two colors it does not. Imagine for example a green spider that not only has reach, but is also able to "catch" creatures with shadow. Tempest used the mechanic quite well.
Horsemanship on the other hand, was basically just a replacement for flying, but it still allowed a few interesting designs outside of the mechanic itself. Such as Rolling Earthquake, but it was still just Flying with another name, which is probably why it was never used outside of P3K.
Your suggested "Vehicle" mechanic does not do this, it is in essence just Equipment with another name, adding complexity for no mechanical gain. Indeed, it reduces the usefulness of multiple cards that care about equipment, while essentially doing the exact same thing as equipment. Much like Flying and Horsemanship.
---
Numquam evolutioni obstes. Solum conculceris.
Pascite draconem, evolvite aut morimini.
Just because two creatures are aboard the same Transport does not mean they both have to attack or block, so no, it isn't a massive flavor failure. Granted, some Transports grant abilities that support attacking, like Trample or Haste, and so creatures aboard those Transports generally will want to attack. Some Transports may force onboard creatures to attack or block.
The main benefit of Transports over global enchantments is color accessibility; a monowhite deck can't use Fervor, but it can use a Pirate Sloop that grants haste. Another benefit is flavorful interaction; in a Pirate set, you could have Transport Ships that certain cards care about, like tribal captains that grant benefits to each creature aboard their Ship. For that matter, you can have creatures care about being aboard Ships and other Transports.
On that note, I would make Transports matter a WU thing. It'd be a nice contrast to RW Equipment.
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.
That doesn't make any logical sense at all. If the creatures aren't attacking as one, what is the point of transports to begin with? Also, granting colors access to abilities in bulk that they should not have access to leads to poor gameplay. Let's say I play a monogreen deck, but thanks to vehicles, I can grant all my creatures flying and first strike. Yeah, not a good idea. Giving an individual creature a keyword ability not usually found in its color(s) with the help of equipment is one thing, but granting all creatures you control of that color(s) such an ability without access to the color(s) the ability is found in, is very, very, very unbalanced.
---
Numquam evolutioni obstes. Solum conculceris.
Pascite draconem, evolvite aut morimini.
You could have a riderless vehicle (with a cost to flip) and a driven vehicle. You could have monstrous (as we see with the werewolves). It opens up so much different design space (the difference would be the way things flip and the flavour it is enhancing.
Another idea is that vehicle mechanic that people are taking about is a lot like champion...
Consider that you have to pay more mana to give all your creatures flying in green than you would have to do in blue. Yeah, Maro says higher mana costs alone are not justification for color pie breaks, but the fact is Equipment are costed higher than Aura equivalents both because they have more staying ability and they grant any color access to abilities normally found in specific colors.
Is Akroma's Memorial unbalanced? Cauldron of Souls? Dragon Throne of Tarkir? Eldrazi Monument? Gruul War Plow? Artifacts have granted keywords in mass for over a decade. Transports are simply a more interesting and hopefully fun approach.
You expect Transports to be a variant of banding somehow, yet banding was a chiefly white ability.
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.
As for the flavor fail of Emrakul riding a vehicle. Vehicles could have a 'weight limit'. Say a max CMC. You can gave one or more creature board a vehicle, but the combined CMC of those creatures cannot exceed the 'weight limit'.
Akroma's Memorial and Eldrazi Monument are both mythic, Cauldron of Souls was from a set where -1/-1 counters matter (and persist exists in all five colors), Dragon Thrown of Tarkir does nothing that any of the colors can not do on their own to larger or smaller degree, and as for Gruul War Plow, Trample exists in all five colors, although it is Tetriary in white and black.
---
Numquam evolutioni obstes. Solum conculceris.
Pascite draconem, evolvite aut morimini.
Correction: Trample is tertiary in white, blue, and black, just as Flying is tertiary in black and red and quarternary in green.
Maro has stated it's okay if colors use artifacts to stretch outside their pie as long as those artifacts aren't doing another color's job better. A 3-mana ship that grants flying and requires 1 mana per passenger is not unbalanced as Levitate is still superior in most blue decks.
At any rate, Transports aren't the kind of card I see showing up often at common, but I could see them showing up semi-frequently at uncommon and higher. Beyond bottom-up blocks, which have looser flavor restrictions than top-down, I could see Pirate and Western blocks both featuring Transports, along with any top-down setting that would prominently feature ships, carts, dirigibles, or other forms of transportation.
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.
The change she talks about is the addition of the sac-to-exile-enchanted-creature ability.
So from this we could perhaps deduce that hitting a creature with a Pacifism-effect alone does not shut down vehicles, while exiling a creature may do so.
I'll guess that vehicles are all artifact creatures with activated abilities of the type: "Tap an untapped creature you control: [effect]"
or, that they have a keyword, let's call it "Engage", where "Engage:X" means "This creature cannot attack or block unless you tap X untapped creatures you control".
Cubetutor Peasant'ish-Funbox
Project: Khans of Tarkir Cube (cubetutor)
But regardless of whether that is what vehicles would do, what would the vehicle itself do? How do you convey mechanically what it does when say, a bear rides a bike through the battlefield instead of walking?
If my post has no tags, then i posted from my phone.
I still think Transport would make a better name, as vehicles generally refer to carts, wagons, and the like while vessels refer to ships. Dirigibles and such would technically be aircraft, but since they share a lot of stylistic cues with vessels, calling them such wouldn't feel too far-fetched. Vehicles and vessels are both forms of transportation, hence my suggestion of Transport as a catch-all.
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.
Flying is secondary in black as it exists at all rarities in pretty much every block. But we are arguing semantics. And your suggested "vehicle" that grants flying is overpowered in both red and green, giving them easy access to an ability they should not have.
---
Numquam evolutioni obstes. Solum conculceris.
Pascite draconem, evolvite aut morimini.
The comment on Choking Restraints does make me wonder though if there's merit to the theories about vehicles being artifacts that can do stuff as long as a creature is riding them. Of course, Kaladesh was still in design when these comments were made, so it's possible the vehicle mechanic has undergone some changes since the time of that comment.
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.
A tank is a vehicle, but isn't really thought of as a transport. Its purpose is more security than movement. Does it get you from A to B, yes, but quite inefficiently.
If the mechanic is vehicles, they likely have a maximum capacity, and hopefully ramp with number of creatures inside them. And though I think the mechanic is sound, I haven't seen anything so far that seems very convincing about it. Perhaps because there's a piece we're still missing. But so far the guesses about it seem to be akin to Champion or regular Equipment. We have seen a few vehicles in the art for Kaladesh so far, so thematically it does seem to make more sense than on previous planes, but it doesn't seem by any means certain yet.