Vehicles open up a lot of design space. Previous vehicle themed cards came with awkward drawbacks like on Juggernaut cards and Ship cards. The crew cost is much more playable and allows cards with strong stats to be costed lower. Vehicles also fit thematically into pretty much any universe. I think it's a safe bet that vehicles will be a staple in future sets.
As for the intent behind the question, as to whether they'll become an evergreen mechanic: nah, and certainly not right away. They'll definitely come back, but having lots of design space doesn't mean they'll be evergreen. Also, I would disagree with the assertion that they fit in any universe; while Equipment can be themed to any world, a world with Vehicles usually tends to fit a more modern aesthetic, which might be harder on worlds like Innistrad (despite the carriages) or Theros (despite Chariot of Victory). Plus, it feels like they need to be built around more than Equipment, with cards that care about untapping and so forth.
Just my two cents; might be very wrong, but overall it just doesn't feel like we have enough info to decide evergreen or not, and since adding a mechanic as evergreen is such a big step I'm gonna err on the side of assuming it's set-specific. It's a great mechanic, though, so at least we know it'll definitely come back somewhere eventually.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes... Three generations of imbeciles are enough."
--Buck v Bell, 1927. This case, regarding the compulsory sterilization of inmates at mental institutions, has -- somehow -- never been overturned. Just a wee PSA for ya.
Two top-down themes I could see making use of Vehicles would be Pirate (ships, ahoy!) and Western (trains and wagons). A plane like Ravnica could also make use of Vehicles (just imagine all the crazy vehicles Izzet could design).
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.
No, because vehicle is a subtype, like equipment, not a keyword, making this impossible
I'm pretty sure the question should have been "Will crew become an evergreen keyword?"
I'm honestly not sure how much design space this has. I'd be very surprised to see it. Mechanics becoming evergreen has a lot to do with community reaction and because of how far out Wizards works they can't react to the communities reaction for a couple years out. Kaladesh will likely rotate out of Standard before crew becomes evergreen.
Take for example Scry - originally printed in Time Spiral IIRC. Didn't become a real thing until Theros.
They made Menace evergreen right away - but it's not a new mechanic, they just gave it a name.
They tried to do Skulk, which lasted for a few sets but the community reaction has been tepid to poor and will probably be abandoned.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Rose tint my world, keep me safe from my trouble and pain.
No, because vehicle is a subtype, like equipment, not a keyword, making this impossible
I'm pretty sure the question should have been "Will crew become an evergreen keyword?"
I'm honestly not sure how much design space this has. I'd be very surprised to see it. Mechanics becoming evergreen has a lot to do with community reaction and because of how far out Wizards works they can't react to the communities reaction for a couple years out. Kaladesh will likely rotate out of Standard before crew becomes evergreen.
Take for example Scry - originally printed in Time Spiral IIRC. Didn't become a real thing until Theros.
They made Menace evergreen right away - but it's not a new mechanic, they just gave it a name.
They tried to do Skulk, which lasted for a few sets but the community reaction has been tepid to poor and will probably be abandoned.
Skulk was never intended to be evergreen, they knew from the start that its design pool was shallow. But SOI needed a semi-evasion keyword, and skulk fit the bill.
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).
Maro also believes that Vehicles (and Energy/Fabricate) have a bunch of design space, so they could make Vehicles a recurring subtype. I'm personally expecting to see Energy and Vehicle on other planes, Fabricate seems a bit more niche though can pop up elsewhere.
Maro also believes that Vehicles (and Energy/Fabricate) have a bunch of design space, so they could make Vehicles a recurring subtype. I'm personally expecting to see Energy and Vehicle on other planes, Fabricate seems a bit more niche though can pop up elsewhere.
All three could show up in any block where it made sense, none of them fit a place such as Zendikar or Tarkir, but I can easily see Fabricate show up on Ravnica, and Energy on New Phyrexia. Vehicles are a little trickier, but could make sense in the right world.
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).
Energy could fit both of those places, though I doubt it when they have enough to work with. And more I just think without a strong Artifact theme Fabricate can't pop up, but other than that it seems fine.
Equipping and Enchanting Vehicles than it's assigned Crew kinda fail.. I hope it won't be a staple in future set because it never lived through it's namesake..
It's name calling just hype innovation but it never innovative. unlike planeswalkers and equipments.
It's better for it to be known as a MACHINE with Operators...
Maro also believes that Vehicles (and Energy/Fabricate) have a bunch of design space, so they could make Vehicles a recurring subtype. I'm personally expecting to see Energy and Vehicle on other planes, Fabricate seems a bit more niche though can pop up elsewhere.
I'm hoping that if we see vrynn in the future energy is a thing in that.
In the article spoiling Smuggler's Copter in the wizard's home page, the author said that equippment had many problems that Vehicles didn't have, for example the protection granting sword are very difficult to deal with in some color combinations because they can't destroy the equipment and and so they must destroy every creature the opponent plays, in comparison there are many ways of dealing with vehicles, they can be destroyed as creatures, as artifacts or you can destroy the creatures that crew them. So that made me think that this mechanic has more potential. Maybe they will make them like a recurring mechnaic, like colored artifacts or hybrid mana. But there is a chance they could make them evergreen. A set usually has 3-5 equipments, so I could imagine 2-4 charriots or vessels in Innistrad for example. It will depend how popular they are.
I still hope they try something similar to Transports, though I'm curious to know if they did try that for Kaladesh and simply found it didn't work well. At any rate, they have a Vehicle mechanic now, so if Vehicles fare well then Transports are basically going to be consigned to my custom sets. It's a tough spot for me, because I want Vehicles to succeed, yet at the same time I acknowledge that if they do then Transports may never happen.
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.
Artifacts that function a little like reverse equipment that grant a keyword (or bonus) that you can attach multiple creatures to, to grant them the keyword/bonus. I vehemently oppose the idea because it doesn't make logical sense in the way it was presented/executed. It is not from an official source, but was speculation on how vehicles would work before we knew.
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 would certainly not be opposed to the idea and some very awesome ideas could be made out of our existing planes for Vehicles but i find it unlikely due to it being one of the things making Kaladesh unique, ease of design means returning will be easier and we have learned that they are concerned about exhausting design opportunities
I would certainly not be opposed to the idea and some very awesome ideas could be made out of our existing planes for Vehicles but i find it unlikely due to it being one of the things making Kaladesh unique, ease of design means returning will be easier and we have learned that they are concerned about exhausting design opportunities
If a mechanic is popular then there is a good chance that the mechanic will get revisited, and not necessarily on the plane on which the mechanic was introduced.
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 can only hope not, only because I think the mechanic is clunky and a tad annoying. They can however keep using any mechanic, if they so wished, but as long as it is popular then it has a much better chance of happening.
Personally I hope that vehicles don't stop from other equipment subtypes, like mounts, which I feel is what vehicles should have been, but that's me. I understand vehicles and a warhorse are two different things, guess that's me being irked by it.
As Krishnath said, they were a tweak on the Equipment concept that allows multiple creatures to board a single Transport and each get the same benefit from it, in exchange for only being able to board one Transport at a time. In a simple expression:
3 Equipment on 1 creature
3 creatures on 1 Transport
So, let's say your creatures board a Speedy Sloop (Artifact - Transport Ship). Each creature aboard Speedy Sloop has haste. It would look like this:
Speedy Sloop2
Artifact - Transport Ship
Each creature aboard Speedy Sloop has haste.
Board 1(1: Target creature you control boards this Transport. Board only as a sorcery.)
You could apply the same principle to an Airship that grants Flying to all creatures aboard, or a Battle Engine that grants Trample, or a Covered Wagon that grants Hexproof. Personally, I think it's a neat twist that's easy to design around. Krishnath is evidently in disagreement.
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.
As Krishnath said, they were a tweak on the Equipment concept that allows multiple creatures to board a single Transport and each get the same benefit from it, in exchange for only being able to board one Transport at a time. In a simple expression:
3 Equipment on 1 creature
3 creatures on 1 Transport
So, let's say your creatures board a Speedy Sloop (Artifact - Transport Ship). Each creature aboard Speedy Sloop has haste. It would look like this:
Speedy Sloop2
Artifact - Transport Ship
Each creature aboard Speedy Sloop has haste.
Board 1(1: Target creature you control boards this Transport. Board only as a sorcery.)
You could apply the same principle to an Airship that grants Flying to all creatures aboard, or a Battle Engine that grants Trample, or a Covered Wagon that grants Hexproof. Personally, I think it's a neat twist that's easy to design around. Krishnath is evidently in disagreement.
I disagree with it because it does not mage sense logically, and it does something that is reserved for enchantments and colored creatures. I.e. granting a keyword to multiple creatures for as long as it remains in play.
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).
Why doesn't it make sense logically? Saying that granting effects to multiple creatures is reserved for enchantments and colored creatures is like saying that granting bonuses to single creatures is reserved for Auras. It's factually incorrect as artifacts have already granted abilities to multiple creatures before.
And even if Wizards prefers that artifacts not encroach on enchantments' design space so much, there's still the fact that Transports do something artifact-like that enchantments do not.
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.
Why doesn't it make sense logically? Saying that granting effects to multiple creatures is reserved for enchantments and colored creatures is like saying that granting bonuses to single creatures is reserved for Auras. It's factually incorrect as artifacts have already granted abilities to multiple creatures before.
And even if Wizards prefers that artifacts not encroach on enchantments' design space so much, there's still the fact that Transports do something artifact-like that enchantments do not.
And I still say it doesn't make a lick of sense because the creatures attached to the "transports" can attack and block individually and not as a group.
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).
Why doesn't it make sense logically? Saying that granting effects to multiple creatures is reserved for enchantments and colored creatures is like saying that granting bonuses to single creatures is reserved for Auras. It's factually incorrect as artifacts have already granted abilities to multiple creatures before.
And even if Wizards prefers that artifacts not encroach on enchantments' design space so much, there's still the fact that Transports do something artifact-like that enchantments do not.
And I still say it doesn't make a lick of sense because the creatures attached to the "transports" can attack and block individually and not as a group.
That's because they're riding the Transport; that doesn't mean they all have to jump ship and attack the opponent. Some Transports grant abilities that aren't combat-related, like activated looting and lifegain (though I'm aware they could be done as attack triggers). Sure, having a crew on a Transport encourages attacking en masse, and given the Pirate flavor for which I originally designed them it usually makes sense to do so, but requiring it is unecessary and restrictive of design space. The airship is the best example; leaving blockers open allows you to use Flying defensively; it makes sense that you can block a Dragon while riding an airship, even if just one crew member engages the Dragon in combat.
To reiterate what I said in that other thread: Transports are not supposed to be a variant on Banding. Mechanically they're a variant of Equipment, and flavorwise are a simple yet versatile approach to ships and other forms of transport. The main problem I see with Transports is that yes, they can get a little complex if multiple creatures with multiple Auras and/or Equipment attached to them are aboard the Transport, but how often in practice are you going to have multiple creatures with more than three Auras and/or Equipment attached to them at a time?
My main problem with the Crew mechanic is that it doesn't really feel like the crewing creature is riding the Vehicle; you can bounce the creature used to crew it, and the Vehicle still works just fine. It's more like they just pull a cord to rev the Vehicle and let it race off. I guess you can argue that even if the creature "leaves" the Vehicle while it's attacking or blocking, it still has momentum, but what about before combat even begins? This is probably just one of those times we have to shrug like we do when putting boots on a Dragon or handing a sword to a Squirrel.
All that said, Vehicles do look like they play well and will probably become the standard for ships, aircraft, and land vehicles in blocks to come.
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.
Why doesn't it make sense logically? Saying that granting effects to multiple creatures is reserved for enchantments and colored creatures is like saying that granting bonuses to single creatures is reserved for Auras. It's factually incorrect as artifacts have already granted abilities to multiple creatures before.
And even if Wizards prefers that artifacts not encroach on enchantments' design space so much, there's still the fact that Transports do something artifact-like that enchantments do not.
And I still say it doesn't make a lick of sense because the creatures attached to the "transports" can attack and block individually and not as a group.
That's because they're riding the Transport; that doesn't mean they all have to jump ship and attack the opponent. Some Transports grant abilities that aren't combat-related, like activated looting and lifegain (though I'm aware they could be done as attack triggers). Sure, having a crew on a Transport encourages attacking en masse, and given the Pirate flavor for which I originally designed them it usually makes sense to do so, but requiring it is unecessary and restrictive of design space. The airship is the best example; leaving blockers open allows you to use Flying defensively; it makes sense that you can block a Dragon while riding an airship, even if just one crew member engages the Dragon in combat.
To reiterate what I said in that other thread: Transports are not supposed to be a variant on Banding. Mechanically they're a variant of Equipment, and flavorwise are a simple yet versatile approach to ships and other forms of transport. The main problem I see with Transports is that yes, they can get a little complex if multiple creatures with multiple Auras and/or Equipment attached to them are aboard the Transport, but how often in practice are you going to have multiple creatures with more than three Auras and/or Equipment attached to them at a time?
My main problem with the Crew mechanic is that it doesn't really feel like the crewing creature is riding the Vehicle; you can bounce the creature used to crew it, and the Vehicle still works just fine. It's more like they just pull a cord to rev the Vehicle and let it race off. I guess you can argue that even if the creature "leaves" the Vehicle while it's attacking or blocking, it still has momentum, but what about before combat even begins? This is probably just one of those times we have to shrug like we do when putting boots on a Dragon or handing a sword to a Squirrel.
All that said, Vehicles do look like they play well and will probably become the standard for ships, aircraft, and land vehicles in blocks to come.
If they jump the ship then they shouldn't logically get the bonus, now should they?
As for working as a replacement for banding, unless they attack and block as one, that doesn't capture the flavor either. (Edit: Seriously, that is my main gripe with the suggested "Transport" mechanic. The keyword granting abilities to multiple creatures can easily be rectified with colored activation costs).
Also, Gruul War Plow is a fine card because it grants a keyword that all five colors have access to and no-one in their right mind would play it outside of a RG deck.
And the two other cards are mythic.
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).
---
Numquam evolutioni obstes. Solum conculceris.
Pascite draconem, evolvite aut morimini.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Just my two cents; might be very wrong, but overall it just doesn't feel like we have enough info to decide evergreen or not, and since adding a mechanic as evergreen is such a big step I'm gonna err on the side of assuming it's set-specific. It's a great mechanic, though, so at least we know it'll definitely come back somewhere eventually.
--Buck v Bell, 1927. This case, regarding the compulsory sterilization of inmates at mental institutions, has -- somehow -- never been overturned. Just a wee PSA for ya.
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.
I'm pretty sure the question should have been "Will crew become an evergreen keyword?"
I'm honestly not sure how much design space this has. I'd be very surprised to see it. Mechanics becoming evergreen has a lot to do with community reaction and because of how far out Wizards works they can't react to the communities reaction for a couple years out. Kaladesh will likely rotate out of Standard before crew becomes evergreen.
Take for example Scry - originally printed in Time Spiral IIRC. Didn't become a real thing until Theros.
They made Menace evergreen right away - but it's not a new mechanic, they just gave it a name.
They tried to do Skulk, which lasted for a few sets but the community reaction has been tepid to poor and will probably be abandoned.
Skulk was never intended to be evergreen, they knew from the start that its design pool was shallow. But SOI needed a semi-evasion keyword, and skulk fit the bill.
---
Numquam evolutioni obstes. Solum conculceris.
Pascite draconem, evolvite aut morimini.
All three could show up in any block where it made sense, none of them fit a place such as Zendikar or Tarkir, but I can easily see Fabricate show up on Ravnica, and Energy on New Phyrexia. Vehicles are a little trickier, but could make sense in the right world.
---
Numquam evolutioni obstes. Solum conculceris.
Pascite draconem, evolvite aut morimini.
It's name calling just hype innovation but it never innovative. unlike planeswalkers and equipments.
It's better for it to be known as a MACHINE with Operators...
I'm hoping that if we see vrynn in the future energy is a thing in that.
But vehicles will return when we do a "Waterworld" set. Pirates and ships and all that.
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=4557651&postcount=1
TheWarden's Creative Commons Music Pick Project (Retired):
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=336498
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.
Artifacts that function a little like reverse equipment that grant a keyword (or bonus) that you can attach multiple creatures to, to grant them the keyword/bonus. I vehemently oppose the idea because it doesn't make logical sense in the way it was presented/executed. It is not from an official source, but was speculation on how vehicles would work before we knew.
---
Numquam evolutioni obstes. Solum conculceris.
Pascite draconem, evolvite aut morimini.
https://archidekt.com/user/71716
If a mechanic is popular then there is a good chance that the mechanic will get revisited, and not necessarily on the plane on which the mechanic was introduced.
---
Numquam evolutioni obstes. Solum conculceris.
Pascite draconem, evolvite aut morimini.
Personally I hope that vehicles don't stop from other equipment subtypes, like mounts, which I feel is what vehicles should have been, but that's me. I understand vehicles and a warhorse are two different things, guess that's me being irked by it.
As Krishnath said, they were a tweak on the Equipment concept that allows multiple creatures to board a single Transport and each get the same benefit from it, in exchange for only being able to board one Transport at a time. In a simple expression:
3 Equipment on 1 creature
3 creatures on 1 Transport
So, let's say your creatures board a Speedy Sloop (Artifact - Transport Ship). Each creature aboard Speedy Sloop has haste. It would look like this:
Speedy Sloop 2
Artifact - Transport Ship
Each creature aboard Speedy Sloop has haste.
Board 1 (1: Target creature you control boards this Transport. Board only as a sorcery.)
You could apply the same principle to an Airship that grants Flying to all creatures aboard, or a Battle Engine that grants Trample, or a Covered Wagon that grants Hexproof. Personally, I think it's a neat twist that's easy to design around. Krishnath is evidently in disagreement.
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.
I disagree with it because it does not mage sense logically, and it does something that is reserved for enchantments and colored creatures. I.e. granting a keyword to multiple creatures for as long as it remains in play.
---
Numquam evolutioni obstes. Solum conculceris.
Pascite draconem, evolvite aut morimini.
And even if Wizards prefers that artifacts not encroach on enchantments' design space so much, there's still the fact that Transports do something artifact-like that enchantments do not.
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.
And I still say it doesn't make a lick of sense because the creatures attached to the "transports" can attack and block individually and not as a group.
---
Numquam evolutioni obstes. Solum conculceris.
Pascite draconem, evolvite aut morimini.
That's because they're riding the Transport; that doesn't mean they all have to jump ship and attack the opponent. Some Transports grant abilities that aren't combat-related, like activated looting and lifegain (though I'm aware they could be done as attack triggers). Sure, having a crew on a Transport encourages attacking en masse, and given the Pirate flavor for which I originally designed them it usually makes sense to do so, but requiring it is unecessary and restrictive of design space. The airship is the best example; leaving blockers open allows you to use Flying defensively; it makes sense that you can block a Dragon while riding an airship, even if just one crew member engages the Dragon in combat.
To reiterate what I said in that other thread: Transports are not supposed to be a variant on Banding. Mechanically they're a variant of Equipment, and flavorwise are a simple yet versatile approach to ships and other forms of transport. The main problem I see with Transports is that yes, they can get a little complex if multiple creatures with multiple Auras and/or Equipment attached to them are aboard the Transport, but how often in practice are you going to have multiple creatures with more than three Auras and/or Equipment attached to them at a time?
My main problem with the Crew mechanic is that it doesn't really feel like the crewing creature is riding the Vehicle; you can bounce the creature used to crew it, and the Vehicle still works just fine. It's more like they just pull a cord to rev the Vehicle and let it race off. I guess you can argue that even if the creature "leaves" the Vehicle while it's attacking or blocking, it still has momentum, but what about before combat even begins? This is probably just one of those times we have to shrug like we do when putting boots on a Dragon or handing a sword to a Squirrel.
All that said, Vehicles do look like they play well and will probably become the standard for ships, aircraft, and land vehicles in blocks to come.
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.
If they jump the ship then they shouldn't logically get the bonus, now should they?
As for working as a replacement for banding, unless they attack and block as one, that doesn't capture the flavor either. (Edit: Seriously, that is my main gripe with the suggested "Transport" mechanic. The keyword granting abilities to multiple creatures can easily be rectified with colored activation costs).
Also, Gruul War Plow is a fine card because it grants a keyword that all five colors have access to and no-one in their right mind would play it outside of a RG deck.
And the two other cards are mythic.
---
Numquam evolutioni obstes. Solum conculceris.
Pascite draconem, evolvite aut morimini.