Nothing. Especially if you want to prevent backwards compatibility or if you must have different flavor.
From what I can gather you disagree with italofoca on that point, so you aren't really qualified to answer that question - at least not by replying with your own unexamined position. Or am I getting that wrong? I certainly don't feel like I've been illuminated on the issue.
That being said, Etherium Cells seem to fit the bill both mechanically and favorly, which I believe has already been pointed out.
Yeah, by me. Which is why I wonder that point always gets lost in further replies.
I can though totally understand somebody choosing not to refer to Etherium by name for their new world. It makes sense then to go with a third new name that hits a similar flavor note to Etherium Cells, but without the lore baggage.
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]
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.
Scions are 1/1 while Spawns are 0/1. They are different. Good call on Etherium Cells but this doesn't really count because they are "one card token". It's pretty easy to justify why one particular card will not play along Treasures as a theme. Not to mention, that was before Ixalan establish Treasure tokens as set mechanic and it showing up randomly in Ravnica Allegiance establishing these tokens as deciduous.
What is so bad about adding a third one if it serves the theme of a set?
Even creature tokens/tribes can't simply be a makeover of each other. If WotC decides to have a bunch of 1/1 red creature tokens that are not goblins, you can bet they will go out of their way to make then feel different and have their own identity. When WotC decided Innistrand wouldn't have goblins, they didn't make a bunch of cards that play like goblins and just renamed then fiends. They actually gave the token a unique ability and avoided making fiend cards that played too much like goblins.
You can always argue that the tokens may be the same but the overall theme will be different, like your example of saprolings and insects. This is doable in creatures because a lot of the design are not in the tokens but in the cards that grant bonuses to the tokens or use then as resources. In non-creature tokens a lot of the design are inbuilt in the token ability and in the artifact subtype. I believe it is not possible to develop this, in UR, in such a way that it's different enough from Ixalan.
Even creature tokens/tribes can't simply be a makeover of each other. If WotC decides to have a bunch of 1/1 red creature tokens that are not goblins, you can bet they will go out of their way to make then feel different and have their own identity. When WotC decided Innistrand wouldn't have goblins, they didn't make a bunch of cards that play like goblins and just renamed then fiends. They actually gave the token a unique ability and avoided making fiend cards that played too much like goblins.
That's cherry picking. Please make your same argument with green vanilla 1/1 tokens between different blocks changing from Saproling to Insect. Or for three different creature types for 1/1 white creature tokens with lifelink (Cat, Vampire, Soldier). Three different creature types for 1/1 white creature tokens with flying (Spirit, Bird, Pegasus) etc.
After all that's what we are talking about here: mechanically identical tokens with different names/subtypes.
In the case of Soldiers and Cats we also got those mechanically distinct tokens in place of the vanilla options, which really must be extra unfathomable to you.
It's you who seems to invalidate part of my argument with:
Scions are 1/1 while Spawns are 0/1. They are different.
But let's also not ignore that Watchwolf already made a mechanical concession with regards to the type of mana added, which is why this is relevant to this discussion (though a mechanically distinct token is not necessary IMO; see above). A slight modification of your own argument: "Treasures add mana of any color; Batteries add C. They are different."
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]
Even creature tokens/tribes can't simply be a makeover of each other. If WotC decides to have a bunch of 1/1 red creature tokens that are not goblins, you can bet they will go out of their way to make then feel different and have their own identity. When WotC decided Innistrand wouldn't have goblins, they didn't make a bunch of cards that play like goblins and just renamed then fiends. They actually gave the token a unique ability and avoided making fiend cards that played too much like goblins.
That's cherry picking. Please make your same argument with green vanilla 1/1 tokens between different blocks changing from Saproling to Insect. Or for three different creature types for 1/1 white creature tokens with lifelink (Cat, Vampire, Soldier). Three different creature types for 1/1 white creature tokens with flying (Spirit, Bird, Pegasus) etc.
After all that's what we are talking about here: mechanically identical tokens with different names/subtypes.
Nops, this is not what we are talking about here. The thread is about UG and UR mechanics for a set with enemy factions. Let me be crystal clear:
Convoke the Guards1W
Instant
Create two 1/1 white Human creature tokens.
Tormented (When this creature dies create a 1/1 black Imp creature token with flying).
This mechanic isn't, imo.
But let's also not ignore that Watchwolf already made a mechanical concession with regards to the type of mana added, which is why this is relevant to this discussion (though a mechanically distinct token is not necessary IMO; see above). A slight modification of your own argument: "Treasures add mana of any color; Batteries add C. They are different."
The mechanical change justify the name change but one is left to wonder what's the point.
Even creature tokens/tribes can't simply be a makeover of each other. If WotC decides to have a bunch of 1/1 red creature tokens that are not goblins, you can bet they will go out of their way to make then feel different and have their own identity. When WotC decided Innistrand wouldn't have goblins, they didn't make a bunch of cards that play like goblins and just renamed then fiends. They actually gave the token a unique ability and avoided making fiend cards that played too much like goblins.
That's cherry picking. Please make your same argument with green vanilla 1/1 tokens between different blocks changing from Saproling to Insect. Or for three different creature types for 1/1 white creature tokens with lifelink (Cat, Vampire, Soldier). Three different creature types for 1/1 white creature tokens with flying (Spirit, Bird, Pegasus) etc.
After all that's what we are talking about here: mechanically identical tokens with different names/subtypes.
Nops, this is not what we are talking about here. The thread is about UG and UR mechanics for a set with enemy factions. Let me be crystal clear:
Convoke the Guards1W
Instant
Create two 1/1 white Human creature tokens.
Tormented (When this creature dies create a 1/1 black Imp creature token with flying).
This mechanic isn't, imo.
It's interesting that you refer to an existing keyword ability being replaced with a new keyword ability since while Clues were create by the dedicated keyword action investigate, Treasures just get created like any other token. Hence this is not a case of replacing a keyword with another, but even if it was, then the very same set as afterlife (which you tormented is based on) contains adapt - a keyword action really close to an existing keyword action but still mechanically distinct (like Battery/Module tokens that produce only colorless mana would be to Treasure tokens) and receiving a new name. The new name also explixitly serves the purpose to make the ability a better fit for Ravnica's Simic.
But let that be clear: Generate as a dedicated keyword action to create a specifc kind of token is akin to investigate creating clues and not to creating Treasures. The Treasure token is not the only token that can be created. Every token is. You have been complaining about the token and if you bring in keywords as your justification, then the bad news is: There is no keyword action dedicated to Treasure. The mechanic is named by the subtype/name. Which is the thing we are talking about.
But let's also not ignore that Watchwolf already made a mechanical concession with regards to the type of mana added, which is why this is relevant to this discussion (though a mechanically distinct token is not necessary IMO; see above). A slight modification of your own argument: "Treasures add mana of any color; Batteries add C. They are different."
The mechanical change justify the name change but one is left to wonder what's the point.
I assume exploring new mechanical space to allow for mechanically and creatively distinct factions.
Before Gold tokens we had a lot of custom sets using gold counters or similar to pay for mana and they really have had varied approaches whether they paid for any color of mana, just for generic mana, or for generic mana and life payment like the ones seen in GDS2. And each iteration on the idea lead to distinct environments.
Part of design (especially vision design (where you are when you are just trying out to find five mechanics for the factions from scratch) is trying out stuff not necessarily knowing where you end up, "scouting ahead". That's a legitimate reason, isn't it?
Add to that that Legend and me have already pointed out that distinct creative treatment for a new plane and lack of backwards compatibility both can be things you might want as a designer (e. g. not having to care about Revel in Riches).
---
But in the end with "The mechanical change justify the name change", my counter question is: What's the point in arguing against a name change you consider justified?
From what I can gather you disagree with italofoca on that point, so you aren't really qualified to answer that question - at least not by replying with your own unexamined position. Or am I getting that wrong? I certainly don't feel like I've been illuminated on the issue.
Yeah, by me. Which is why I wonder that point always gets lost in further replies.
I can though totally understand somebody choosing not to refer to Etherium by name for their new world. It makes sense then to go with a third new name that hits a similar flavor note to Etherium Cells, but without the lore baggage.
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
Scions are 1/1 while Spawns are 0/1. They are different. Good call on Etherium Cells but this doesn't really count because they are "one card token". It's pretty easy to justify why one particular card will not play along Treasures as a theme. Not to mention, that was before Ixalan establish Treasure tokens as set mechanic and it showing up randomly in Ravnica Allegiance establishing these tokens as deciduous.
Even creature tokens/tribes can't simply be a makeover of each other. If WotC decides to have a bunch of 1/1 red creature tokens that are not goblins, you can bet they will go out of their way to make then feel different and have their own identity. When WotC decided Innistrand wouldn't have goblins, they didn't make a bunch of cards that play like goblins and just renamed then fiends. They actually gave the token a unique ability and avoided making fiend cards that played too much like goblins.
You can always argue that the tokens may be the same but the overall theme will be different, like your example of saprolings and insects. This is doable in creatures because a lot of the design are not in the tokens but in the cards that grant bonuses to the tokens or use then as resources. In non-creature tokens a lot of the design are inbuilt in the token ability and in the artifact subtype. I believe it is not possible to develop this, in UR, in such a way that it's different enough from Ixalan.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
Final answer.
That's cherry picking. Please make your same argument with green vanilla 1/1 tokens between different blocks changing from Saproling to Insect. Or for three different creature types for 1/1 white creature tokens with lifelink (Cat, Vampire, Soldier). Three different creature types for 1/1 white creature tokens with flying (Spirit, Bird, Pegasus) etc.
After all that's what we are talking about here: mechanically identical tokens with different names/subtypes.
In the case of Soldiers and Cats we also got those mechanically distinct tokens in place of the vanilla options, which really must be extra unfathomable to you.
It's you who seems to invalidate part of my argument with:
But let's also not ignore that Watchwolf already made a mechanical concession with regards to the type of mana added, which is why this is relevant to this discussion (though a mechanically distinct token is not necessary IMO; see above). A slight modification of your own argument: "Treasures add mana of any color; Batteries add C. They are different."
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
Nops, this is not what we are talking about here. The thread is about UG and UR mechanics for a set with enemy factions. Let me be crystal clear:
Convoke the Guards 1W
Instant
Create two 1/1 white Human creature tokens.
This functional reprint of Raise the Alarm is fine.
Tormented (When this creature dies create a 1/1 black Imp creature token with flying).
This mechanic isn't, imo.
The mechanical change justify the name change but one is left to wonder what's the point.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
1. To distinguish it from other worlds.
2. To prevent backwards (if not forwards) compatibility.
Personally, I think Etherium Cells fit the bill. *shrugs*
It's interesting that you refer to an existing keyword ability being replaced with a new keyword ability since while Clues were create by the dedicated keyword action investigate, Treasures just get created like any other token. Hence this is not a case of replacing a keyword with another, but even if it was, then the very same set as afterlife (which you tormented is based on) contains adapt - a keyword action really close to an existing keyword action but still mechanically distinct (like Battery/Module tokens that produce only colorless mana would be to Treasure tokens) and receiving a new name. The new name also explixitly serves the purpose to make the ability a better fit for Ravnica's Simic.
But let that be clear: Generate as a dedicated keyword action to create a specifc kind of token is akin to investigate creating clues and not to creating Treasures. The Treasure token is not the only token that can be created. Every token is. You have been complaining about the token and if you bring in keywords as your justification, then the bad news is: There is no keyword action dedicated to Treasure. The mechanic is named by the subtype/name. Which is the thing we are talking about.
I assume exploring new mechanical space to allow for mechanically and creatively distinct factions.
Before Gold tokens we had a lot of custom sets using gold counters or similar to pay for mana and they really have had varied approaches whether they paid for any color of mana, just for generic mana, or for generic mana and life payment like the ones seen in GDS2. And each iteration on the idea lead to distinct environments.
Part of design (especially vision design (where you are when you are just trying out to find five mechanics for the factions from scratch) is trying out stuff not necessarily knowing where you end up, "scouting ahead". That's a legitimate reason, isn't it?
Add to that that Legend and me have already pointed out that distinct creative treatment for a new plane and lack of backwards compatibility both can be things you might want as a designer (e. g. not having to care about Revel in Riches).
---
But in the end with "The mechanical change justify the name change", my counter question is: What's the point in arguing against a name change you consider justified?
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