I've made a coupleofposts about this set already, but here's a refresher.
The main goals of this set are:
1. Exclusive representation for enemy color combinations. This means focusing mostly on color pairs while also including a couple of enemy tricolor cycles.
2. Create five enemy pair factions which are distinct from Ravnican guilds of the same colors. For example, UR should not be focused on spells, RW should not be focused on combat, etc.
3. Build the set around the idea of cooperation between these factions, as represented by tricolor card cycles and keyword mashups. That means each faction's keyword should be able to appear on the same card as the keyword of an adjacent faction. For example, a green card with both BG and GU keywords.
4. Encourage synergy between factions that share colors, but avoid synergy between factions that don't. I don't want any 4c or 5c decks.
5. (Optional) Deliver on the demand for a UR faction focused on artifacts.
The keywords I landed on in my last post, but am no longer using, are as follows:
WB: Undying (Whenever this creature dies without a +1/+1 counter, return it to the battlefield under its owner's control with a +1/+1 counter.) (returning) BG: Siphon (You may move up to one counter from one creature you control to another.) GU: Revere (Whenever you cast a spell with converted mana cost 4 or greater, put a +1/+1 counter on this creature.) UR: Improvise (Each artifact you tap after you're done activating mana abilities pays for 1 of this spell's mana cost.) (returning) RW: Welcome — If a creature that wasn't cast entered the battlefield under your control this turn...
These mechanics roughly accomplish the goals I had in mind, but there were problems. For example, Siphon works well with both Undying and Revere, but does basically nothing on its own and requires a lot of designing and building around to really justify. Additionally, Revere is a tad too close to traditional Simic mechanical space (using +1/+1 counters on creatures for value), particularly with Evolve. There is also the problem of Improvise demanding a set that's heavily saturated with artifacts, which is very difficult to achieve in a gold faction set. I tried to plant artifacts in neighboring factions (like giving RW a lot of artifact creature token production effects to enable Improvise and Welcome), but I ultimately found that such a theme pulls too much of the set's resources and focus to be justifiable. Lastly, I found that I was taking the wrong approach to designing faction mechanics. I was centering each factions identity on the keywords themselves rather than using the keywords to signal the mechanical identities and play into them.
Given all of this, I decided to start from the beginning and build from the ground up.
This time, I started with GU, landing on this keyword:
Duplicate (cost) (When this creature enters the battlefield, if you cast it for its duplicate cost, create a token that's a copy of it.)
Here's an example:
Stampeding Oliphaunt2GG
Creature - Elephant Beast (M)
3/3
Duplicate 5GGG
Haste
When ~ enters the battlefield, choose one—
-Creatures you control get +1/+1 and gain vigilance until end of turn.
-Creatures you control get +1/+1 and gain trample until end of turn.
The idea is simple: You can get two of this creature instead of one if you pay a higher cost. It's simple and distinct from Simic, playing into a ramp theme rather than a +1/+1 counters theme. Flavorfully, yes, it's easy to imagine the Simic cloning creatures, but that's never been their mechanical focus. It also trades the rather minor problem of a keyword at common referencing converted mana cost (which is not friendly to new players) with a keyword that creates unique tokens. I'm unconcerned, however, given the existence of Embalm, Eternalize, and the "Copy" token from the Dimir Guild Kit. I think these mechanics' viablility at common and this new tool prove that this is a non-issue.
What I like most about this mechanic is that it's modular, not linear. Where Revere pushes the player heavily into a certain play pattern by rewarding one specific action, Duplicate does the opposite. It offers a payoff, enabling the ramp theme without forcing the player into it. Any duplicate creature can fit perfectly fine into any deck that wants it, even if that deck doesn't have a ramp theme. It also allows for some really fun design and deckbuilding opportunities. It's just the kind of mechanic that intrigues the Johnny/Jenny in me, but is perfectly attractive to Spike and Timmy/Tammy too.
The flavor here is pretty much the same as it was with Revere. This faction idolizes wildlife and nature. The new twist here is that this faction now has a habit of trying to recreate the creatures they revere. Imitation, to them, is the sincerest form of flattery. The act of reproducing the object of their fascination also helps them to understand more about it. Where the Simic want to take what they deem is useful about any given life form and combine those aspects into one form, this faction believe that nature is already perfect in its way, and seek to emulate it rather than fiddle with it. Don't fix what ain't broke.
Now for UR:
Artifice N (Create N colorless Module artifact tokens with "Sacrifice this artifact: Add one mana of any color.")
I realized that, even though it wasn't feasible to use a mechanic like Improvise, which demands a high saturation of artifacts to work very well, an artifact theme wasn't entirely out of reach. I just needed, again, to take a more modular approach. I looked at mechanics like Treasure tokens from Ixalan block and Investigate from SOI and found that those mechanics were perfectly successful and generally popular, so I set out to find something in that vein. Creating artifact tokens which are generally useful in all decks is a rather safe concept, but I just needed to nail down exactly what sort of token to use. I landed on a variant of Treasure for a couple of reasons:
1. It provides mana fixing, which is a plus for a gold set.
2. It privides some mana acceleration, which plays into its synergy with GU's ramp theme.
3. I like Investigate a lot, but the flavor was not quite right and I couldn't find a good enough way to re-skin it to justify doing so.
This approach lets me inject the artifacts-matter theme into the individual card designs. In general, these designs won't demand having more than one artifact at a time, but generally get better if you do. For example:
Study the Mechanism4UU
Instant (U)
You may sacrifice an artifact and pay 2UU rather than pay this spell's mana cost.
Draw three cards.
Flavorfully, this is a faction of artificers and inventors. Their passion is in taking devices, breaking them down, and rebuilding them to serve whatever function suits their fancy at any given moment. Think Kaladeshi LEGOs. It was a little difficult to figure out exactly what these artifact tokens were supposed to be, so I just decided on generic, multipurpose Modules. Small pieces of machinery which can be used in a veriety of different machines. Almost like the nanobots from Big Hero 6.
So that's what I have so far. What do you guys think? Any suggestions? Complaints? Concerns? Questions?
I'm still brainstorming the remaining three mechanics, so any ideas are welcome.
I really liked what I was reading until I got to the point where you decided to tack the artifact thing onto Duplicate, at which point I went "wut." You're repeating the exact same mistake you made when you tried to drag artifacts into your RW color pair.
Unless the whole set has an artifact theme, like with Kaladesh and Aether Revolt, mono-green cards have no business with artifact synergy because artifact mechanics are so low of a priority in green's color pie that they require a high level of set-wide saturation to be justified. Unless you want your GU color pair, particularly mono-green cards, to have artifact synergy of its own completely independent from other color pairs, I would not recommend having Duplicate make artifact copies.
Inter-pair wedge synergy is great, but you want to achieve it via organic means, not by having one color pair take over its neighbors. Artifact creatures with duplicate are a good solution, but green creatures that spit out artifacts for the sake of red cards are not.
I really liked what I was reading until I got to the point where you decided to tack the artifact thing onto Duplicate, at which point I went "wut." You're repeating the exact same mistake you made when you tried to drag artifacts into your RW color pair.
Unless the whole set has an artifact theme, like with Kaladesh and Aether Revolt, mono-green cards have no business with artifact synergy because artifact mechanics are so low of a priority in green's color pie that they require a high level of set-wide saturation to be justified. Unless you want your GU color pair, particularly mono-green cards, to have artifact synergy of its own completely independent from other color pairs, I would not recommend having Duplicate make artifact copies.
Inter-pair wedge synergy is great, but you want to achieve it via organic means, not by having one color pair take over its neighbors. Artifact creatures with duplicate are a good solution, but green creatures that spit out artifacts for the sake of red cards are not.
I have a fairly clear vision of what the GU faction is, flavorfully. I guess that while it makes sense to me for green artificers to exist in this world, it doesn't shine through as clearly as I thought in the mechanics of the set. I wanna see what other people think first, but if enough people agree that it doesn't feel organic, I'm fine reverting to non-artifact copy tokens.
I really liked what I was reading until I got to the point where you decided to tack the artifact thing onto Duplicate, at which point I went "wut." You're repeating the exact same mistake you made when you tried to drag artifacts into your RW color pair.
Unless the whole set has an artifact theme, like with Kaladesh and Aether Revolt, mono-green cards have no business with artifact synergy because artifact mechanics are so low of a priority in green's color pie that they require a high level of set-wide saturation to be justified. Unless you want your GU color pair, particularly mono-green cards, to have artifact synergy of its own completely independent from other color pairs, I would not recommend having Duplicate make artifact copies.
Inter-pair wedge synergy is great, but you want to achieve it via organic means, not by having one color pair take over its neighbors. Artifact creatures with duplicate are a good solution, but green creatures that spit out artifacts for the sake of red cards are not.
Seconded. Esper is a great example of an artifact faction that has little (if any) crossover synergy in regards to artifacts. It sort of stood alone mechanically and relied on any crossover elements of the set to come from the other arcs. The non-artifact version of Duplicate is sweet.
I really liked what I was reading until I got to the point where you decided to tack the artifact thing onto Duplicate, at which point I went "wut." You're repeating the exact same mistake you made when you tried to drag artifacts into your RW color pair.
Unless the whole set has an artifact theme, like with Kaladesh and Aether Revolt, mono-green cards have no business with artifact synergy because artifact mechanics are so low of a priority in green's color pie that they require a high level of set-wide saturation to be justified. Unless you want your GU color pair, particularly mono-green cards, to have artifact synergy of its own completely independent from other color pairs, I would not recommend having Duplicate make artifact copies.
Inter-pair wedge synergy is great, but you want to achieve it via organic means, not by having one color pair take over its neighbors. Artifact creatures with duplicate are a good solution, but green creatures that spit out artifacts for the sake of red cards are not.
On Siphon
I think the design space of Siphon is problematic. You note t hat it works well with other mechanics in the set, but it works poorly so poorly on its own that it has to have been designed as a placeholder that appeals to you merely because of how it interacts with other mechanics.
Alone Siphon creates an esoteric advantage. If I have a creature with a +1/+1 counter and I want it on another creature, I cast a spell that siphons it. So already I need 2 permanents in play, one of which uses counters. How often does this happen in a normal game of magic without special rarely printed keywords that use +1/+1 counters? If this was the only +1/+1 counter keyword mechanic in the set, you'd bloat the text of the rest of the cards in order to give it any function - see Graft and possibly the worst offender, Adapt... from a set which includes a (R) legendary creature that effectively removes the drawback of the mechanic once and admits they costs are overcosted, so it pulls a Training Grounds.
In a sense, this is like keywording the 2nd Biomancer's Familiar ability, or Thick-Skinned Goblin. I mean, imagine a keyword that specifically let's me Miracle on the 2nd card I drew, or one that lets me pay 0 for a buyback cost! I cannot imagine a situation where anyone willing to risk the setup cost is going to do anything but something degenerate with it.
On Reverie Spell Snare feels blue; this kind of attention to numbers on card feels like a very blue or white thing to do. But every time WOTC tries to do something that references creature's power in red or green, it ends up being ridiculous word salad. Sarkhan's Unsealing, ferocious effects, and the like have a way of removing you from the game. As a one-off spell or ability, this can be okay if it's fun or, as in the case with Spell Snare, somewhat flavorful (Blue's taking advantage of esoteric knowledge about a spell's mana cost with this effect, or so I imagine).
But Reverie wants to keyword something that counts a spell's CMC - as in that's what I'll be doing during the game; I'll build my deck around casting spells with CMC 4 or greater; I'll overcost an X spell so it costs 4 mana just to get the bonus. To make matters worse, though - it has to be a creature deck.
Different players like different things out of magic; I see no problem with giving people a way to play a "4CMC" deck. But I have to think that way looks more like a one-shot Aetherflux Reservoir, which replicates how Storm plays without printing a card with Storm. This also reminds me of Ajani's Pridemate in that while I love playing with it, and generally wish there were more cards like it (in some sense), I do not want them to keyword Pridemate (Whenever you gain life, put a +1/+1 counter on this creature.).
On Welcome
There have been 3 ability words that have passed the smell test for me - Threshold (and to a lesser degree Delirium), as it's asking me to pay attention to one particularly interesting gamestate that can be interacted with, and Landfall (as it asks me to think strategically about playing lands, something that costs no mana and doesn't otherwise affect the board).
Welcome plays like Landfall, but how much control do I really have over creatures ETB w/o paying their mana cost? Suppose I have the following creature:
Lightning Righter3RR
Creature - Elemental (U)
Landfall - Whenever a land enters the battlefield under your control, this creature deals 3 damage to any target.
3/3
At 5 mana, I don't really need to play any other lands in most cases. So I can sit back, accumulate lands, and then when there's something I want to hit, I can play a land to hit it. The land then goes onto the battlefield and doesn't really do anything. Maybe I use it for a mana sink; maybe I threaten to doublespell. But really? I've just turned my land into a Lightning Bolt thanks to this guy.
Compare this to Lightning Welcomer3RR
Creature - Elemental (U)
Welcome - If a creature that wasn't cast entered the battlefield under your control this turn, this creature deals 3 damage to any target.
3/3
When, exactly, is this going to be triggered? Undying (parasitic on another mechanic!)? Maybe you cast Living End? Actually; that's all there is to this, isn't it? It's a Boros colors mechanic that only really works as a combo piece with a Living End-style effect, token generator, or the like!
(Also, why am I not welcoming normally summoned creatures?)
Well, I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who has noticed problems with my previous batch of keywords. I've already stated that I'm not using them, so I won't go into detail arguing the few points where I disagree with you, because it's not important. I just put them there to show where I was starting.
On Duplicate
We've discussed this before. The only thing I can say is this: Name it Twin([cost], discard this card: Create two tokens that are a copy of it.). Duplicating suggests taking one thing and copying it. Twinning suggests taking one thing and destroying it. This is clearly meant to feel like twinning. (Any additional design space you can squeeze out of having 2 tokens and 1 creature in the graveyard is just a bonus).
Regarding your "artifact clone" version - this is better, I guess. But it still feels off summoning and duplicating in the same turn.
On Artifice
This is just the "gold" mechanic, which WOTC has rejected for Treasure. If you're going to pillage for treasure, call it Pillage N (Create N treasure tokens).
This is clearly redundant design space and not all that interesting. Make a new token. Maybe it makes Short Sword equipment tokens. Maybe it makes a sacrificial token with a Fabcricate-like effect of choosing X or Y.
As for mana fixing; I genuinely don't understand why UR gets to be manafixing. IXA pirates liked their treasure, so the flavor was there. What do these guys like? Rather than getting clue tokens, maybe you can give them something that lets you Sacrifice it, Discard a card, Scry 2, then draw a card. A "looting" artifact like this would be fairly interesting.
Again, not concerning myself with choosing final names for anything just yet. These playtest names are just here to get the general idea across.
That said, I believe that the names I've chosen are closer to what I envision for the flavor than any of your suggestions. Thanks though.
As for the mechanics, most of your suggestions seem to be more "interesting" but also more complicated, sometimes for the sake of being more complicated. That's unfortunately a direction I do not want to take this set in. With five keywords planned, the keywords should be simple and more utilitarian. Adding extra steps or functions just because it seems "interesting" will more likely hurt the set over all. Again, the mechanical identity of each faction will shine through the individual cards more than the mechanics, which exist to support those identities.
The reason I chose to use a re-skinned Treasure is that I like the functionality. The most important part is that it creates artifacts. The second most important part is that it serves a generally useful function that any deck can take advantage of. The two things I could think of that were universally welcome, small effects were mana production and card draw. I opted for mana fixing because it can flavorfully represent Artificers using parts to make devices or machines or to generate temporary effects. The bit about mana fixing is really more of a happy accident. I considered making a variant that adds C instead, but decided that the mana fixing is probably more of a boon than a risk in a heavily multicolored set. As for the name of the token, using the words Treasure or Gold come with a very specific flavor, and that flavor is not what I'm going for. I see no problem with re-skinning it to my "Kaladeshi LEGO" concept, so I'm gonna stick with my choice.
I do appreciate the support for my idea to make the Duplicate tokens into artifacts too, but based on the feedback I keep getting from everyone else, I think I'm probably gonna scrap it. Normal copy tokens just seem more natural. And maybe using artifact tokens would create too much synergy anyway.
Well, the one clear fix I suggest is make your tokens that sacrifice for mana also tap. The update from Gold to Treasure is meaningful among multiple axes, and if you like Treasures as you say and just want to adopt the flavor to your faction, then don't make the mistake of losing a decent part of the mechanical interpretation of the concept.
Three points on the controversial point of adding an artifact-rider to duplicate:
During this early visionary stage of the design (before you have even settled on the new mechanics of the other three factions) you should base your decision for this not on the needs of other factions (as they may change anyway during the iteration process of rejecting or moving around mechanics) but on the need of your faction. You don't mention the flavor and themes of your factions, so it's hard to gauge what the green.blue faction would or would not do. Simic wouldn't make artifacts, but you clearly envision something that is not Simic.
Monogreen as part of a monogreen faction would not fit turning the tokens into artifacts unless its a global theme (e. g. Kaladesh green was making some really neat large artifact creatures), but monogreen cards that are part of a green-blue faction might easily make artifact creatures that are flavored appropriately. I could imagine the concept of artisans - following a spiritual and intellectual pursuit of approaching some natural ideal or essence - shaping artifice from living wood creating artifact equivalents in the style of Carven Caryatid being a green-blue faction. Once again the fact that your ideas about the faction are hidden makes the judgement of whether this is appropriate hard and people latch onto what they already know: Green or partly green factions that wouldn't fit the idea.
You introduce this additional far too early - before you even know whether the two factions need additional synergy. There is such a thing as too much synergy between two factions. You e. g. want your green-blue and blue-red faction to have enough points of negative synergy and divergence where they play and feel like separate factions and not everyone who finds themself in one color pair automatically assumes they might go for the third color as well. Read up on the design stories about the mechanics of the guilds in the most recent two sets (GRN and RNA) and you'll find the following quote: "That's great, right? More synergy. The problem was it was a little too synergistic. Just as Guilds of Ravnica had the issue of making sure Boros and Selesnya weren't too synergistic, so too did Simic and Gruul." By focussing too much on creating extra synergy right now you worry a lot about creating a connection that you might soon notice is creating an imbalance in your faction framework.
Suggestion: Keep the artifact-rider out of duplicate for now unless your concept of the green-blue faction itself really would prefer you to have the rider. Keep the idea that you could add in the rider for later in case you feel the additional synergy would be beneficial once you have a full suite of mechanics and at least a dozen of cards each - once you know whether the factions lack coherence without some additional push. Then return here and present your faction flavor and faction mechanic and ask for input in how to integrate the two if you have issues doing so organically yourself.
Summary: It's too early to worry about fine-tuning. Start design with the most simple thematically fitting version.
EDIT: Oh, no. Settling on your decision while I type that up, are you?
Okay so lets forget about the artifact rider for duplicate for now. That can be settled later.
I did offer some brief explanations about what the flavor for these two factions is, but I guess that isn't quite enough, so let me try to clarify that here. Before I do, however, I want to stress that this set is bottom up. The flavor of these factions is second to their mechanics. So I don't yet have all of the details worked out, but will eventually do so.
The general idea I have for this world is that it will be pretty futuristic, but closer to the 60's vision of the future with fantasy elements mixed in.
So, for GU, imagine Jurassic Park, where a bunch of scientists managed to create clones of huge, exotic, powerful creatures, only this time those creatures weren't dead to begin with. These guys admire the power and beauty of nature's creatures more than anything else. They view nature's creatures as the pinnacle of biological perfection, and as such, their main goal is to successfully duplicate the power and qualities they so admire in nature's wildlife. They don't dare attempt to change or mess with those qualities, because why try to improve on perfection? They simply strive to honor and understand nature's way of producing such admirable beings. It's easy for me to see these guys duplicating nature by building replicas, machines designed to mimic wildlife, which is why I had the idea to make the tokens into artifacts. It plays into this faction's desire to learn and understand the physical mechanics that make wildlife so powerful, as they would be trying to piece it together themselves.
Simic, on the other hand, see nature as moving in the right direction, but too slowly for their tastes. The Simic use science to experiment and fiddle with nature's creations to try and create something greater than the sum of its parts. My faction would see this mindset as naive.
And for the UR, I think of them as a tech firm whose latest project is a small, modular device that can combine with other devices to make a variety of different things. Additionally, they can act as mana batteries which can be depleted to power spells. This set sees this faction exploring all of the different possibilities this new device presents.
A side note about Treasure: The only reason they tap is that they were in the same standard as Improvise with Kaladesh. As there's no such mechanic in my set, I see no reason to keep the tap cost. And, again, I see no reason not to re-skin Treasures or Gold into Modules, seeing as how Treasures are just re-skinned Etherium Cells, which are just re-skinned Lotus Petals. You guys keep saying it's not interesting, but the interest comes from what you can DO with the tokens, not just the tokens themselves. In this set, that appears more in the individual cards. Let me show you some examples.
Robotize1UR
Enchantment - Aura (U)
Enchant Artifact
Enchanted artifact is a creature with base power and toughness 0/0 in addition to its other types. It gets +5/+5 and has trample.
Sky BotUR
Artifact Creature - Construct (U)
2/2
Flying
If you spent only mana produced by artifacts to cast ~, it enters the battlefield with two +1/+1 counters on it.
I'm not sure exactly what these factions will look like aesthetically, but that will come later. The important thing is just to figure out what they do.
Have you considered an equipment token creating mechanic for UR?
Yes. That's a bit too complex for what I'm aiming at. Maybe in a different world with fewer things going on.
@GoblinPrime: I get that you're convinced that cloning is Simic. That's okay. I don't disagree. My point is very simple and very black-and-white:
Simic uses +1/+1 counters. That's Simic's mechanical identity. That's what they do. +1/+1 counters. It doesn't matter if you can visualize a Simic Biomancer doing a cool experiment to clone a creature, just like it doesn't matter that I can imagine Izzet mages building Contraptions. The core mechanical identity of those guilds are represented by the effects on their cards, which in the case of the Simic, is most of the time something to do with +1/+1 counters. That's never changed in 4 sets worth of Simic cards over 3 "blocks" and is unlikely to change in the future.
My GU faction does not use +1/+1 counters. That's what makes it mechanically distinct from Simic. That's all I care about. Flavor comes second, and it can be whatever it needs to be to drive home the mechanical identity which is that this faction thrives on dumping a lot of mana into its creatures. Duplicate is just the best, cleanest way I've seen of doing that so far and I remain unconvinced that the mechanic needs to change in any way.
And, again, I get that you think "ripping off Treasure" is boring because it's not different. That's also okay. But I'm not gonna force something that doesn't function as well in the set just because it's different. Being different for the sake of being different is not a good idea, as I've been told plenty of times recently. So thank you for your opinions, but I'm still unconvinced that the mechanic needs to change.
I’m with GoblinPrime... imo a Lotus Petal token mechanic would be considerably more difficult to develop than a Short Sword token mechanic. Do you disagree?
@GoblinPrime, I'm just gonna stop discussing Simic with you. I've already created a narrative reason behind the Duplicate mechanic. Whether or not it is satisfactory to you doesn't interest me because it's not important at this stage. I'm fielding mechanical ideas, not story ideas. I don't mean to be rude, but I'm running out of ways to try and make you understand that Duplicate is not in Simic's mechanical identity. And, in any case, you're sorta taking over the thread here. I appreciate your feedback, but I would really rather our argument not chase other people away.
And the last thing I'll say about Artifice is that you and I seem to have fundamental differences in understanding and opinions of how mechanics can and should or should not be reused. I have no doubt that taking a mechanic from one set, renaming it, and using it in a different set with entirely different design approaches and card interactions and overall set structure will be just as successful as coming up with something brand new. Take, for example, Chroma and Devotion. Fundamentally the same mechanic, yet they are used in very different ways, and by most accounts, much better the second time around.
I'm sure both of us can go on for days trying to convince each other that our approach is better, but I think I've seen enough to conclude that I just plain disagree with you, and the back and forth is getting repetitive as it is. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to be convinced otherwise, but I just haven't been told anything that'll do it for me.
@Legend: You may end up being right about that, but I don't think there's a way to know that at this point.
Also, part of the reason I'm erring away from Equipment and Vehicles and the like is that they represent a pretty significant investment in board presence. That may be better in a set that wants a higher density of artifacts than this one. It also feels like the kind of thing that would fit better in a white archetype rather than a blue one.
The play pattern I'm going for for this faction is, in general, one that involves having at least one artifact and sacrificing it for value. People don't want to sacrifice Equipment or Vehicles if they can help it.
But an artifact that's gonna be sacrificed by its own ability anyway feels a lot better to use as fodder for another effect, like Shrapnel Blast, for example. That's why I started looking at tokens like Gold/Treasure and Clue. It's just that there's not a whole lot else that serves similar, utilitarian purposes.
I considered something that sacrifices to give a creature a +1/+1 counter, or give some temporary p/t bonus. I also considered making small artifact creatures, but all of those felt weird in the two colors with the fewest creatures.
I also considered things like Scry or Looting/Rummaging or, like I've already mentioned, colorless mana production. They all have their merits, but they all also have some problems.
Should the Scry version just use actual Scry, or some variant that's spelled out? What would the ideal numbers be on that? What about Looting/Rummaging? Which of those do I use? Could I give the player a choice between the two without it being too wordy or complicated? Would adding colorless mana instead of mana of any color be ideal for a gold set?
Gold/Treasure and Clue are known quantities and have both proven to be popular. They both serve important, utilitarian purposes that most sets want, mana smoothing and card flow, and they both do it perfectly cleanly. Sure, all the other things I looked at do similar things, but they all seem more complicated or wordy or less effective than Gold/Treasure and Clue. I just don't see what there is to gain by opting for something that could potentially just be messier or less effective.
Like I've said before, the only reason I opted for Gold/Treasure over Clue is that the former just seems much easier to re-skin than the latter. Whichever one I end up choosing, I want it to fit the tone I have in mind.
If anything, I would be most inclined to switch over to colorless mana, because that at least would play similarly enough to Gold/Treasure that it fills the same role, while having different enough limitations that it would create different gameplay. Do you think that would be a more reasonable effect? For example:
Absorb Spell2UU
Instant (U)
Counter target spell. Artifice 2. (Create two colorless Module artifact tokens with "Sacrifice this artifact: Add C.")
I don't mean to be so snappy, I just don't think the argument is going anywhere. Different perspectives and all that. Again, I really do appreciate your feedback and your point of view,
For example, I think the only two reasons Horsemanship is frowned on are 1. It doesn't interact with Flying despite being functionally identical to it, and 2. There is no feasible reason why any world would not have flying creatures of any kind, so using Horsemanship instead, which can't coexist with Flying, really hurts card concepting.
Tokens just don't have that problem. There are plenty of functionally identical tokens in Magic, many of which are often in standard at the same time, and on some rare occasions even in the same set. Take the Spirit tokens and Thopter tokens in Ravnica Allegiance. Both are 1/1 flying creatures, neither of which have any tribal support of any kind. One of them is attached to a mechanic and another is not. Nobody complains there. I don't see what's different about Gold vs Module.
And I'm not worried about the name of the mechanic. Just like how I'm not worried about the name of Duplicate.
Oops, I guess my last post wasn't the last thing I was gonna say about Artifice :/
Maybe make a 40 card deck in which every nonland card makes Treasure tokens. Play some games, then play some games with the same deck but pretend the tokens are Short Swords instead of Lotus Petals and see which way is more fun.
Duplicate is pretty good, definitely something WotC will do sooner or later. It plays like a kicker variant, so it rewards green ramping and blue controlling. It also a go wide mechanic which means you gain some spot removal resistance + synergy with mass pumps at the cost of being worse trading during attacks. However both green pumps and blue tempo and power reduction tricks helps a lot with that. So it looks like a pretty good fit for UG.
I totally agree it feels non-simic both in mechanical and in flavor front, which is another win. About whether the tokens should be artifact or not: mono green artifact clones are weird. You should avoid this but if this is very important for your vision about how the faction works, go for it. It's definitely not a deal breaker and helps to justify the blue in a mechanics that leans more towards green.
Artifice: I agree the similarity between this and Treasure/Gold tokens are just too big, it's not worth the name change. Your analogy comparing this to creature tokens simply don't hold. Equal creatures with different types is a feature of the game since forever. It is not only important for tribal themes outside the set but also to establish the plane's fluff.
Your are using tokens that play like gold but aren't gold. Why ? Is it important that your cards don't play along with treasure matters cards ? The UR faction in your world does not use gold ? Why does modules function exactly like gold ?
You must understand that breaking conventions like this has a cost, even if it's a small one. It can be done but it requires justification. Tbh I would have a merchant UR faction focused around accumulating wealth in the form of magical artifacts and treasures.
Mechanically, it's not so easy to develop Artifice but it can be done and can be amazing if done right.
I can see I'm in the minority when it comes to Artifice. So, to avoid the Treasure/Gold naming problem, I'm just gonna change the token so it produces C instead. And, while I'm at it, I'm just gonna be less coy with the flavor of the mechanic:
Generate N (Create N colorless Battery artifact tokens with "Sacrifice this artifact: Add C.")
After all, using colorless mana instead of colored mana makes development a lot easier and "goodstuff decks" a lot harder to build.
Do you guys think this is an acceptable compromise?
Obviously cards designed to work with previous versions of the mechanic but not with the current version will have to be reworked. I'm okay with that.
Yup, that tap symbol is just as irrelevant as it ever was. Thanks for noticing.
No, I have not done any playtesting yet. I'm waiting until I have preliminary mechanics for all factions before I start that. That way I'll know to design cards that have the UR mechanic with the RW and GU mechanics in mind.
The short answer for why I'm not using Treasure is that the world my set takes place on is more si-fi than fantasy. Yes, it has fantasy elements, but the tone just doesn't agree with the very evocative word "Treasure."
The long answer is this: I've described before how the UR faction are artificers who create devices with endless possible applications. Nothing about that identity wants anything to do with "Treasure." To me, "Treasure" is great for a BX faction (like Pirates or the Orzhov) because "Treasure" is most tangibly connected with greed. Blue and red may individually have their own reasons to search for treasure (blue being pragmatic, seeing treasure as a means to an end, or academic, wanting to preserve and learn from the historical value of ancient treasures; red being hedonistic and seeing treasure as a gateway to whatever good or service strikes its fancy, or simply being enthralled by its inherent tangible allure), but I don't really see them coming together over Treasure without already belonging to a larger faction (like UBR Pirates) that has a powerful, baked-in flavor reason for wanting Treasure. This has always bothered me about Dack Fayden's color identity, but whatever.
The point is that the focus of my UR faction is artifacts, not Treasure. Frankly, if it weren't for the fact that it would just be weird and overly demanding on the set design to compensate, I wouldn't have the tokens created by this mechanic do anything at all. Obviously, that's a bad idea because a mechanic should at least do something in a vacuum (yes there are exceptions, but only a few), so I wanted the tokens to have some sort of small, utilitarian effect. I just also want that effect to remain utilitarian and not come with so much baggage that it overrides the faction's actual theme, like how Treasure would do.
So, basically, Treasure comes with too much baggage despite its mechanical idealism. The same is true of Gold and Clues, which is why I want something new that can fit well in a faction of artificers. I personally am fine with taking the functionality of Treasure and attaching it to the flavor of something more si-fi, but apparently that's just too jarring for anyone else.
So I decided to use a new token that is close enough in function to Treasure to accomplish what it needs to without stepping into Treasure's domain. Batteries are safer and more si-fi, and they are brand new tokens with unique abilities to any other artifact token in Magic's entire token library.
Again, what I DON'T want is for this token to highjack the faction's theme. The fact that the keyword creates artifact tokens that the actual card designs can use however they want is the whole point of the mechanic. What the token does is basically trinket text. So maybe it's better for the token to be a toned down version of a more spotlight seeking token like Treasure.
Here's are as many different designs as I can come up with right now that illustrate what I want to do with this faction:
4UU
Instant
You may sacrifice an artifact and pay 2UU rather than pay ~'s mana cost.
Draw three cards.
2U
Artifact T, Sacrifice an artifact: Draw a card.
1UR
Enchantment - Aura
Enchant artifact
Enchanted artifact is a creature with base power and toughness 0/0 in addition to its other types. It gets +5/+5 and has trample.
2RR
Artifact Creature - Phoenix
4/2
You may cast ~ from your graveyard if you spend at least two mana produced by artifacts to cast it.
Flying, haste
1UR
Artifact
~ has all activated abilities of each artifact card in your graveyard. T, Sacrifice an artifact or discard a card: Draw a card.
Yes, I know this doesn't work ideally with tokens, but it works with all of the other artifact cards with activated abilities in the set. And anyway the tokens can be used for its second ability.
1R
Artifact Creature - Construct
0/4
Whenever another artifact enters the battlefield under your control, untap ~. T: ~ deals 1 damage to target player or planeswalker.
1UR
Artifact
You may have ~ enter the battlefield as a copy of any artifact you control, except it has "When this artifact is put into a graveyard from the battlefield, return it to its owner's hand."
3RR
Sorcery
Artifacts you control become creatures with base power and toughness 1/1 until end of turn. Creatures you control get +2/+0 and gain haste until end of turn.
1U
Creature - Artificer
1/3
Whenever an artifact you control is put into a graveyard from the battlefield, target opponent puts the top two cards of their library into their graveyard. 3U: Generate 1.
R
Creature - Artificer
1/1
Haste
Whenever an artifact enters the battlefield under your control, ~ gets +1/+0 until end of turn. 3R: Generate 1.
2UU
Artifact
Tap an untapped artifact you control: Scry 1.
I could continue to go on, but I hope this gives you a better idea of the theme I want to execute. Treasure only wants to be spent. My tokens want to be used for other things.
Sounds like you just want to make a Sky Pirate set. I've explained in detail why I don't want to do that, but I don't think you're actually reading my posts all the way through so I'll stop.
Oh, and I don't see why you want me to explain the ruling with Gold and Improvise considering that neither of those things is in my set.
Some of the designs you suggest to use with Batteries don't make sense with a mana producing tokens. How do you feel to sacrifice for something else? Maybe something closer to Clues? Life gain? Or do you love the "energy" flavor too much?
The short answer for why I'm not using Treasure is that the world my set takes place on is more si-fi than fantasy. Yes, it has fantasy elements, but the tone just doesn't agree with the very evocative word "Treasure."
Hello, Etherium Cell?
My point is that you don't need to make mechanical changes to Treasure to rename it... among other things.
Our point is that this mechanic already exists. It was certainly just minor theme in Ixalan block but it was there. It has plenty of design space left so it appearing before it's not an issue.
What is an issue, however, is the renaming of a mechanic that already exist. It's just not good design to have two mechanics doing the same thing.
You either adjust your flavor to accommodate treasure tokens or your have to come up with something new. Almost nobody will swallow this.
You either adjust your flavor to accommodate treasure tokens or your have to come up with something new. Almost nobody will swallow this.
Okay, earlier this thread I thought I might just be the only one remembering Etherium Cells, but now that I already mentioned them can we please stop pretending giving a new name/subtype to a token is a big deal? It's a different flavor treatment. I hope we're not going to see the same ruckus every time someone decides their 1/1 green vanilla creature tokens are Insects rather than Saprolings, or Squirrels.
I just wish they tapped to actually create an artifact feeling and interaction (that is partly justified with the expected way artifacts work).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Planar Chaos was not a mistake neither was it random. You might want to look at it again.
[thread=239793][Game] Level Up - Creature[/thread]
That is not the same thing. Evergreen creature tokens by themselves does not constitute a set mechanic. Suppose I was doing a custom Ravnica set and made "Create X 1/1 white and red soldier creature tokens with haste" as the Boros mechanic. Everyone would hate it and rightly so.
Non-creature tokens or very unique creature tokens like eldrazi Spawn or phyrexian Germ constitutes unique and unexplored design, this is why they have the benefit of being a good candidate for faction mechanic. At the same time, because they carry this weight, it is bad design to use the same functional tokens twice with different names. This is more akin to use counters for temporary permanents and not call then time counters.
It is doable if your set needs the flavor and the tokens. But renaming and reflavoring a mechanic that already exists is not good custom design. And if WotC have plans for future treasure matters cards, the parasitism is terrible.
Non-creature tokens or very unique creature tokens like eldrazi Spawn or phyrexian Germ constitutes unique and unexplored design, this is why they have the benefit of being a good candidate for faction mechanic. At the same time, because they carry this weight, it is bad design to use the same functional tokens twice with different names. This is more akin to use counters for temporary permanents and not call then time counters.
Okay, you name Eldrazi Spawn, but Eldrazi Scions exist (and a mechanical change about the same size has been suggested for Modules/Batteries - twice, though I personally advise against one of them).
And while you talk about evergreen creature tokens, you don't explain how that's so different from deciduous artifact tokens - especially tokens for which in the canon game already exist two different tokens that do the mechanical same thing in Treasures and Etherium Cells.
What is so bad about adding a third one if it serves the theme of a set?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Planar Chaos was not a mistake neither was it random. You might want to look at it again.
[thread=239793][Game] Level Up - Creature[/thread]
What is so bad about adding a third one if it serves the theme of a set?
Nothing. Especially if you want to prevent backwards compatibility or if you must have different flavor. That being said, Etherium Cells seem to fit the bill both mechanically and favorly, which I believe has already been pointed out.
The main goals of this set are:
1. Exclusive representation for enemy color combinations. This means focusing mostly on color pairs while also including a couple of enemy tricolor cycles.
2. Create five enemy pair factions which are distinct from Ravnican guilds of the same colors. For example, UR should not be focused on spells, RW should not be focused on combat, etc.
3. Build the set around the idea of cooperation between these factions, as represented by tricolor card cycles and keyword mashups. That means each faction's keyword should be able to appear on the same card as the keyword of an adjacent faction. For example, a green card with both BG and GU keywords.
4. Encourage synergy between factions that share colors, but avoid synergy between factions that don't. I don't want any 4c or 5c decks.
5. (Optional) Deliver on the demand for a UR faction focused on artifacts.
The keywords I landed on in my last post, but am no longer using, are as follows:
WB: Undying (Whenever this creature dies without a +1/+1 counter, return it to the battlefield under its owner's control with a +1/+1 counter.) (returning)
BG: Siphon (You may move up to one counter from one creature you control to another.)
GU: Revere (Whenever you cast a spell with converted mana cost 4 or greater, put a +1/+1 counter on this creature.)
UR: Improvise (Each artifact you tap after you're done activating mana abilities pays for 1 of this spell's mana cost.) (returning)
RW: Welcome — If a creature that wasn't cast entered the battlefield under your control this turn...
These mechanics roughly accomplish the goals I had in mind, but there were problems. For example, Siphon works well with both Undying and Revere, but does basically nothing on its own and requires a lot of designing and building around to really justify. Additionally, Revere is a tad too close to traditional Simic mechanical space (using +1/+1 counters on creatures for value), particularly with Evolve. There is also the problem of Improvise demanding a set that's heavily saturated with artifacts, which is very difficult to achieve in a gold faction set. I tried to plant artifacts in neighboring factions (like giving RW a lot of artifact creature token production effects to enable Improvise and Welcome), but I ultimately found that such a theme pulls too much of the set's resources and focus to be justifiable. Lastly, I found that I was taking the wrong approach to designing faction mechanics. I was centering each factions identity on the keywords themselves rather than using the keywords to signal the mechanical identities and play into them.
Given all of this, I decided to start from the beginning and build from the ground up.
This time, I started with GU, landing on this keyword:
Duplicate (cost) (When this creature enters the battlefield, if you cast it for its duplicate cost, create a token that's a copy of it.)
Here's an example:
Stampeding Oliphaunt 2GG
Creature - Elephant Beast (M)
3/3
Duplicate 5GGG
Haste
When ~ enters the battlefield, choose one—
-Creatures you control get +1/+1 and gain vigilance until end of turn.
-Creatures you control get +1/+1 and gain trample until end of turn.
The idea is simple: You can get two of this creature instead of one if you pay a higher cost. It's simple and distinct from Simic, playing into a ramp theme rather than a +1/+1 counters theme. Flavorfully, yes, it's easy to imagine the Simic cloning creatures, but that's never been their mechanical focus. It also trades the rather minor problem of a keyword at common referencing converted mana cost (which is not friendly to new players) with a keyword that creates unique tokens. I'm unconcerned, however, given the existence of Embalm, Eternalize, and the "Copy" token from the Dimir Guild Kit. I think these mechanics' viablility at common and this new tool prove that this is a non-issue.
What I like most about this mechanic is that it's modular, not linear. Where Revere pushes the player heavily into a certain play pattern by rewarding one specific action, Duplicate does the opposite. It offers a payoff, enabling the ramp theme without forcing the player into it. Any duplicate creature can fit perfectly fine into any deck that wants it, even if that deck doesn't have a ramp theme. It also allows for some really fun design and deckbuilding opportunities. It's just the kind of mechanic that intrigues the Johnny/Jenny in me, but is perfectly attractive to Spike and Timmy/Tammy too.
The flavor here is pretty much the same as it was with Revere. This faction idolizes wildlife and nature. The new twist here is that this faction now has a habit of trying to recreate the creatures they revere. Imitation, to them, is the sincerest form of flattery. The act of reproducing the object of their fascination also helps them to understand more about it. Where the Simic want to take what they deem is useful about any given life form and combine those aspects into one form, this faction believe that nature is already perfect in its way, and seek to emulate it rather than fiddle with it. Don't fix what ain't broke.
Now for UR:
Artifice N (Create N colorless Module artifact tokens with "Sacrifice this artifact: Add one mana of any color.")
I realized that, even though it wasn't feasible to use a mechanic like Improvise, which demands a high saturation of artifacts to work very well, an artifact theme wasn't entirely out of reach. I just needed, again, to take a more modular approach. I looked at mechanics like Treasure tokens from Ixalan block and Investigate from SOI and found that those mechanics were perfectly successful and generally popular, so I set out to find something in that vein. Creating artifact tokens which are generally useful in all decks is a rather safe concept, but I just needed to nail down exactly what sort of token to use. I landed on a variant of Treasure for a couple of reasons:
1. It provides mana fixing, which is a plus for a gold set.
2. It privides some mana acceleration, which plays into its synergy with GU's ramp theme.
3. I like Investigate a lot, but the flavor was not quite right and I couldn't find a good enough way to re-skin it to justify doing so.
This approach lets me inject the artifacts-matter theme into the individual card designs. In general, these designs won't demand having more than one artifact at a time, but generally get better if you do. For example:
Study the Mechanism 4UU
Instant (U)
You may sacrifice an artifact and pay 2UU rather than pay this spell's mana cost.
Draw three cards.
Flavorfully, this is a faction of artificers and inventors. Their passion is in taking devices, breaking them down, and rebuilding them to serve whatever function suits their fancy at any given moment. Think Kaladeshi LEGOs. It was a little difficult to figure out exactly what these artifact tokens were supposed to be, so I just decided on generic, multipurpose Modules. Small pieces of machinery which can be used in a veriety of different machines. Almost like the nanobots from Big Hero 6.
So that's what I have so far. What do you guys think? Any suggestions? Complaints? Concerns? Questions?
I'm still brainstorming the remaining three mechanics, so any ideas are welcome.
Unless the whole set has an artifact theme, like with Kaladesh and Aether Revolt, mono-green cards have no business with artifact synergy because artifact mechanics are so low of a priority in green's color pie that they require a high level of set-wide saturation to be justified. Unless you want your GU color pair, particularly mono-green cards, to have artifact synergy of its own completely independent from other color pairs, I would not recommend having Duplicate make artifact copies.
Inter-pair wedge synergy is great, but you want to achieve it via organic means, not by having one color pair take over its neighbors. Artifact creatures with duplicate are a good solution, but green creatures that spit out artifacts for the sake of red cards are not.
Seconded. Esper is a great example of an artifact faction that has little (if any) crossover synergy in regards to artifacts. It sort of stood alone mechanically and relied on any crossover elements of the set to come from the other arcs. The non-artifact version of Duplicate is sweet.
Again, not concerning myself with choosing final names for anything just yet. These playtest names are just here to get the general idea across.
That said, I believe that the names I've chosen are closer to what I envision for the flavor than any of your suggestions. Thanks though.
As for the mechanics, most of your suggestions seem to be more "interesting" but also more complicated, sometimes for the sake of being more complicated. That's unfortunately a direction I do not want to take this set in. With five keywords planned, the keywords should be simple and more utilitarian. Adding extra steps or functions just because it seems "interesting" will more likely hurt the set over all. Again, the mechanical identity of each faction will shine through the individual cards more than the mechanics, which exist to support those identities.
The reason I chose to use a re-skinned Treasure is that I like the functionality. The most important part is that it creates artifacts. The second most important part is that it serves a generally useful function that any deck can take advantage of. The two things I could think of that were universally welcome, small effects were mana production and card draw. I opted for mana fixing because it can flavorfully represent Artificers using parts to make devices or machines or to generate temporary effects. The bit about mana fixing is really more of a happy accident. I considered making a variant that adds C instead, but decided that the mana fixing is probably more of a boon than a risk in a heavily multicolored set. As for the name of the token, using the words Treasure or Gold come with a very specific flavor, and that flavor is not what I'm going for. I see no problem with re-skinning it to my "Kaladeshi LEGO" concept, so I'm gonna stick with my choice.
I do appreciate the support for my idea to make the Duplicate tokens into artifacts too, but based on the feedback I keep getting from everyone else, I think I'm probably gonna scrap it. Normal copy tokens just seem more natural. And maybe using artifact tokens would create too much synergy anyway.
Three points on the controversial point of adding an artifact-rider to duplicate:
Suggestion: Keep the artifact-rider out of duplicate for now unless your concept of the green-blue faction itself really would prefer you to have the rider. Keep the idea that you could add in the rider for later in case you feel the additional synergy would be beneficial once you have a full suite of mechanics and at least a dozen of cards each - once you know whether the factions lack coherence without some additional push. Then return here and present your faction flavor and faction mechanic and ask for input in how to integrate the two if you have issues doing so organically yourself.
Summary: It's too early to worry about fine-tuning. Start design with the most simple thematically fitting version.
EDIT: Oh, no. Settling on your decision while I type that up, are you?
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO
I did offer some brief explanations about what the flavor for these two factions is, but I guess that isn't quite enough, so let me try to clarify that here. Before I do, however, I want to stress that this set is bottom up. The flavor of these factions is second to their mechanics. So I don't yet have all of the details worked out, but will eventually do so.
The general idea I have for this world is that it will be pretty futuristic, but closer to the 60's vision of the future with fantasy elements mixed in.
So, for GU, imagine Jurassic Park, where a bunch of scientists managed to create clones of huge, exotic, powerful creatures, only this time those creatures weren't dead to begin with. These guys admire the power and beauty of nature's creatures more than anything else. They view nature's creatures as the pinnacle of biological perfection, and as such, their main goal is to successfully duplicate the power and qualities they so admire in nature's wildlife. They don't dare attempt to change or mess with those qualities, because why try to improve on perfection? They simply strive to honor and understand nature's way of producing such admirable beings. It's easy for me to see these guys duplicating nature by building replicas, machines designed to mimic wildlife, which is why I had the idea to make the tokens into artifacts. It plays into this faction's desire to learn and understand the physical mechanics that make wildlife so powerful, as they would be trying to piece it together themselves.
Simic, on the other hand, see nature as moving in the right direction, but too slowly for their tastes. The Simic use science to experiment and fiddle with nature's creations to try and create something greater than the sum of its parts. My faction would see this mindset as naive.
And for the UR, I think of them as a tech firm whose latest project is a small, modular device that can combine with other devices to make a variety of different things. Additionally, they can act as mana batteries which can be depleted to power spells. This set sees this faction exploring all of the different possibilities this new device presents.
A side note about Treasure: The only reason they tap is that they were in the same standard as Improvise with Kaladesh. As there's no such mechanic in my set, I see no reason to keep the tap cost. And, again, I see no reason not to re-skin Treasures or Gold into Modules, seeing as how Treasures are just re-skinned Etherium Cells, which are just re-skinned Lotus Petals. You guys keep saying it's not interesting, but the interest comes from what you can DO with the tokens, not just the tokens themselves. In this set, that appears more in the individual cards. Let me show you some examples.
Robotize 1UR
Enchantment - Aura (U)
Enchant Artifact
Enchanted artifact is a creature with base power and toughness 0/0 in addition to its other types. It gets +5/+5 and has trample.
Sky Bot UR
Artifact Creature - Construct (U)
2/2
Flying
If you spent only mana produced by artifacts to cast ~, it enters the battlefield with two +1/+1 counters on it.
I'm not sure exactly what these factions will look like aesthetically, but that will come later. The important thing is just to figure out what they do.
@GoblinPrime: I get that you're convinced that cloning is Simic. That's okay. I don't disagree. My point is very simple and very black-and-white:
Simic uses +1/+1 counters. That's Simic's mechanical identity. That's what they do. +1/+1 counters. It doesn't matter if you can visualize a Simic Biomancer doing a cool experiment to clone a creature, just like it doesn't matter that I can imagine Izzet mages building Contraptions. The core mechanical identity of those guilds are represented by the effects on their cards, which in the case of the Simic, is most of the time something to do with +1/+1 counters. That's never changed in 4 sets worth of Simic cards over 3 "blocks" and is unlikely to change in the future.
My GU faction does not use +1/+1 counters. That's what makes it mechanically distinct from Simic. That's all I care about. Flavor comes second, and it can be whatever it needs to be to drive home the mechanical identity which is that this faction thrives on dumping a lot of mana into its creatures. Duplicate is just the best, cleanest way I've seen of doing that so far and I remain unconvinced that the mechanic needs to change in any way.
And, again, I get that you think "ripping off Treasure" is boring because it's not different. That's also okay. But I'm not gonna force something that doesn't function as well in the set just because it's different. Being different for the sake of being different is not a good idea, as I've been told plenty of times recently. So thank you for your opinions, but I'm still unconvinced that the mechanic needs to change.
And the last thing I'll say about Artifice is that you and I seem to have fundamental differences in understanding and opinions of how mechanics can and should or should not be reused. I have no doubt that taking a mechanic from one set, renaming it, and using it in a different set with entirely different design approaches and card interactions and overall set structure will be just as successful as coming up with something brand new. Take, for example, Chroma and Devotion. Fundamentally the same mechanic, yet they are used in very different ways, and by most accounts, much better the second time around.
I'm sure both of us can go on for days trying to convince each other that our approach is better, but I think I've seen enough to conclude that I just plain disagree with you, and the back and forth is getting repetitive as it is. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to be convinced otherwise, but I just haven't been told anything that'll do it for me.
@Legend: You may end up being right about that, but I don't think there's a way to know that at this point.
Also, part of the reason I'm erring away from Equipment and Vehicles and the like is that they represent a pretty significant investment in board presence. That may be better in a set that wants a higher density of artifacts than this one. It also feels like the kind of thing that would fit better in a white archetype rather than a blue one.
The play pattern I'm going for for this faction is, in general, one that involves having at least one artifact and sacrificing it for value. People don't want to sacrifice Equipment or Vehicles if they can help it.
But an artifact that's gonna be sacrificed by its own ability anyway feels a lot better to use as fodder for another effect, like Shrapnel Blast, for example. That's why I started looking at tokens like Gold/Treasure and Clue. It's just that there's not a whole lot else that serves similar, utilitarian purposes.
I considered something that sacrifices to give a creature a +1/+1 counter, or give some temporary p/t bonus. I also considered making small artifact creatures, but all of those felt weird in the two colors with the fewest creatures.
I also considered things like Scry or Looting/Rummaging or, like I've already mentioned, colorless mana production. They all have their merits, but they all also have some problems.
Should the Scry version just use actual Scry, or some variant that's spelled out? What would the ideal numbers be on that? What about Looting/Rummaging? Which of those do I use? Could I give the player a choice between the two without it being too wordy or complicated? Would adding colorless mana instead of mana of any color be ideal for a gold set?
Gold/Treasure and Clue are known quantities and have both proven to be popular. They both serve important, utilitarian purposes that most sets want, mana smoothing and card flow, and they both do it perfectly cleanly. Sure, all the other things I looked at do similar things, but they all seem more complicated or wordy or less effective than Gold/Treasure and Clue. I just don't see what there is to gain by opting for something that could potentially just be messier or less effective.
Like I've said before, the only reason I opted for Gold/Treasure over Clue is that the former just seems much easier to re-skin than the latter. Whichever one I end up choosing, I want it to fit the tone I have in mind.
If anything, I would be most inclined to switch over to colorless mana, because that at least would play similarly enough to Gold/Treasure that it fills the same role, while having different enough limitations that it would create different gameplay. Do you think that would be a more reasonable effect? For example:
Absorb Spell 2UU
Instant (U)
Counter target spell. Artifice 2. (Create two colorless Module artifact tokens with "Sacrifice this artifact: Add C.")
For example, I think the only two reasons Horsemanship is frowned on are 1. It doesn't interact with Flying despite being functionally identical to it, and 2. There is no feasible reason why any world would not have flying creatures of any kind, so using Horsemanship instead, which can't coexist with Flying, really hurts card concepting.
Tokens just don't have that problem. There are plenty of functionally identical tokens in Magic, many of which are often in standard at the same time, and on some rare occasions even in the same set. Take the Spirit tokens and Thopter tokens in Ravnica Allegiance. Both are 1/1 flying creatures, neither of which have any tribal support of any kind. One of them is attached to a mechanic and another is not. Nobody complains there. I don't see what's different about Gold vs Module.
And I'm not worried about the name of the mechanic. Just like how I'm not worried about the name of Duplicate.
Oops, I guess my last post wasn't the last thing I was gonna say about Artifice :/
I totally agree it feels non-simic both in mechanical and in flavor front, which is another win. About whether the tokens should be artifact or not: mono green artifact clones are weird. You should avoid this but if this is very important for your vision about how the faction works, go for it. It's definitely not a deal breaker and helps to justify the blue in a mechanics that leans more towards green.
Artifice: I agree the similarity between this and Treasure/Gold tokens are just too big, it's not worth the name change. Your analogy comparing this to creature tokens simply don't hold. Equal creatures with different types is a feature of the game since forever. It is not only important for tribal themes outside the set but also to establish the plane's fluff.
Your are using tokens that play like gold but aren't gold. Why ? Is it important that your cards don't play along with treasure matters cards ? The UR faction in your world does not use gold ? Why does modules function exactly like gold ?
You must understand that breaking conventions like this has a cost, even if it's a small one. It can be done but it requires justification. Tbh I would have a merchant UR faction focused around accumulating wealth in the form of magical artifacts and treasures.
Mechanically, it's not so easy to develop Artifice but it can be done and can be amazing if done right.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
Generate N (Create N colorless Battery artifact tokens with "Sacrifice this artifact: Add C.")
After all, using colorless mana instead of colored mana makes development a lot easier and "goodstuff decks" a lot harder to build.
Do you guys think this is an acceptable compromise?
Yup, that tap symbol is just as irrelevant as it ever was. Thanks for noticing.
No, I have not done any playtesting yet. I'm waiting until I have preliminary mechanics for all factions before I start that. That way I'll know to design cards that have the UR mechanic with the RW and GU mechanics in mind.
The short answer for why I'm not using Treasure is that the world my set takes place on is more si-fi than fantasy. Yes, it has fantasy elements, but the tone just doesn't agree with the very evocative word "Treasure."
The long answer is this: I've described before how the UR faction are artificers who create devices with endless possible applications. Nothing about that identity wants anything to do with "Treasure." To me, "Treasure" is great for a BX faction (like Pirates or the Orzhov) because "Treasure" is most tangibly connected with greed. Blue and red may individually have their own reasons to search for treasure (blue being pragmatic, seeing treasure as a means to an end, or academic, wanting to preserve and learn from the historical value of ancient treasures; red being hedonistic and seeing treasure as a gateway to whatever good or service strikes its fancy, or simply being enthralled by its inherent tangible allure), but I don't really see them coming together over Treasure without already belonging to a larger faction (like UBR Pirates) that has a powerful, baked-in flavor reason for wanting Treasure. This has always bothered me about Dack Fayden's color identity, but whatever.
The point is that the focus of my UR faction is artifacts, not Treasure. Frankly, if it weren't for the fact that it would just be weird and overly demanding on the set design to compensate, I wouldn't have the tokens created by this mechanic do anything at all. Obviously, that's a bad idea because a mechanic should at least do something in a vacuum (yes there are exceptions, but only a few), so I wanted the tokens to have some sort of small, utilitarian effect. I just also want that effect to remain utilitarian and not come with so much baggage that it overrides the faction's actual theme, like how Treasure would do.
So, basically, Treasure comes with too much baggage despite its mechanical idealism. The same is true of Gold and Clues, which is why I want something new that can fit well in a faction of artificers. I personally am fine with taking the functionality of Treasure and attaching it to the flavor of something more si-fi, but apparently that's just too jarring for anyone else.
So I decided to use a new token that is close enough in function to Treasure to accomplish what it needs to without stepping into Treasure's domain. Batteries are safer and more si-fi, and they are brand new tokens with unique abilities to any other artifact token in Magic's entire token library.
Again, what I DON'T want is for this token to highjack the faction's theme. The fact that the keyword creates artifact tokens that the actual card designs can use however they want is the whole point of the mechanic. What the token does is basically trinket text. So maybe it's better for the token to be a toned down version of a more spotlight seeking token like Treasure.
4UU
Instant
You may sacrifice an artifact and pay 2UU rather than pay ~'s mana cost.
Draw three cards.
2U
Artifact
T, Sacrifice an artifact: Draw a card.
1UR
Enchantment - Aura
Enchant artifact
Enchanted artifact is a creature with base power and toughness 0/0 in addition to its other types. It gets +5/+5 and has trample.
2RR
Artifact Creature - Phoenix
4/2
You may cast ~ from your graveyard if you spend at least two mana produced by artifacts to cast it.
Flying, haste
1UR
Artifact
~ has all activated abilities of each artifact card in your graveyard.
T, Sacrifice an artifact or discard a card: Draw a card.
Yes, I know this doesn't work ideally with tokens, but it works with all of the other artifact cards with activated abilities in the set. And anyway the tokens can be used for its second ability.
1R
Artifact Creature - Construct
0/4
Whenever another artifact enters the battlefield under your control, untap ~.
T: ~ deals 1 damage to target player or planeswalker.
1UR
Artifact
You may have ~ enter the battlefield as a copy of any artifact you control, except it has "When this artifact is put into a graveyard from the battlefield, return it to its owner's hand."
3RR
Sorcery
Artifacts you control become creatures with base power and toughness 1/1 until end of turn. Creatures you control get +2/+0 and gain haste until end of turn.
1U
Creature - Artificer
1/3
Whenever an artifact you control is put into a graveyard from the battlefield, target opponent puts the top two cards of their library into their graveyard.
3U: Generate 1.
R
Creature - Artificer
1/1
Haste
Whenever an artifact enters the battlefield under your control, ~ gets +1/+0 until end of turn.
3R: Generate 1.
2UU
Artifact
Tap an untapped artifact you control: Scry 1.
I could continue to go on, but I hope this gives you a better idea of the theme I want to execute. Treasure only wants to be spent. My tokens want to be used for other things.
Oh, and I don't see why you want me to explain the ruling with Gold and Improvise considering that neither of those things is in my set.
Hello, Etherium Cell?
My point is that you don't need to make mechanical changes to Treasure to rename it... among other things.
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO
Our point is that this mechanic already exists. It was certainly just minor theme in Ixalan block but it was there. It has plenty of design space left so it appearing before it's not an issue.
What is an issue, however, is the renaming of a mechanic that already exist. It's just not good design to have two mechanics doing the same thing.
You either adjust your flavor to accommodate treasure tokens or your have to come up with something new. Almost nobody will swallow this.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
Okay, earlier this thread I thought I might just be the only one remembering Etherium Cells, but now that I already mentioned them can we please stop pretending giving a new name/subtype to a token is a big deal? It's a different flavor treatment. I hope we're not going to see the same ruckus every time someone decides their 1/1 green vanilla creature tokens are Insects rather than Saprolings, or Squirrels.
I just wish they tapped to actually create an artifact feeling and interaction (that is partly justified with the expected way artifacts work).
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO
That is not the same thing. Evergreen creature tokens by themselves does not constitute a set mechanic. Suppose I was doing a custom Ravnica set and made "Create X 1/1 white and red soldier creature tokens with haste" as the Boros mechanic. Everyone would hate it and rightly so.
Non-creature tokens or very unique creature tokens like eldrazi Spawn or phyrexian Germ constitutes unique and unexplored design, this is why they have the benefit of being a good candidate for faction mechanic. At the same time, because they carry this weight, it is bad design to use the same functional tokens twice with different names. This is more akin to use counters for temporary permanents and not call then time counters.
It is doable if your set needs the flavor and the tokens. But renaming and reflavoring a mechanic that already exists is not good custom design. And if WotC have plans for future treasure matters cards, the parasitism is terrible.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
Okay, you name Eldrazi Spawn, but Eldrazi Scions exist (and a mechanical change about the same size has been suggested for Modules/Batteries - twice, though I personally advise against one of them).
And while you talk about evergreen creature tokens, you don't explain how that's so different from deciduous artifact tokens - especially tokens for which in the canon game already exist two different tokens that do the mechanical same thing in Treasures and Etherium Cells.
What is so bad about adding a third one if it serves the theme of a set?
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO
Nothing. Especially if you want to prevent backwards compatibility or if you must have different flavor. That being said, Etherium Cells seem to fit the bill both mechanically and favorly, which I believe has already been pointed out.