In the original Mirrodin, they dropped the last sentence seemingly randomly from Darksteel on, and they never printed the reminder text on any rares.
For us, everyone knows how to use equipment. I don't think we need the last sentence at all. Then, we'll drop the reminder text all together when we get to higher rarities or later in the block.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"In the beginning, MTG Salvation switched to a new forum format.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
It was at that moment that I realized: I'm kinda just making these things up. We can just write the rules the way we want them to work. People will have fun, and people will get it.
EDIT: I just noticed that everyone is writing "non-Component." Why is that...? Is there an issue with attaching Components to other Components, especially considering we can already attach Components to Equipment?
I don't think the non-Component clause is completely necessary, but I like it being there. It prevents me from chaining all my components together and just reassembling the base component when my Contraption gets destroyed (in other words, putting all my components on the one with the cheapest assemble cost and never paying the rest again). This would be less of an issue in limited where my opponent is more likely to disassemble it, but could be a problem in constructed. "Non-Component" solves that issue without us really losing much.
This is the reminder text, I've been using in MSE as we've discussed it:
(Attach this to target non-Component artifact you control. That artifact is a Contraption in addition to its other types. Assemble only as a sorcery.)
It seems short enough to me, and I figured we wouldn't use it on higher rarities to begin with. I think at this point, the attach mechanic is as basic to Magic as the tapping.
EDIT: I just noticed that everyone is writing "non-Component." Why is that...? Is there an issue with attaching Components to other Components, especially considering we can already attach Components to Equipment?
The "non-Component" part was someone's (I can't remember who) solution to the problem of being able to Assemble a contraption with another component that is already assembled into a Contraption.
Simi-Nath'd
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sig by Rivenor
Cube. The best way to play Magic. PERIOD. Come over and check it out. Also, check out my Peasant Split Card Cube.
The World of Pokemon RPG has been rebooted. Come over and check it out.
The "non-Component" part was someone's (I can't remember who) solution to the problem of being able to Assemble a contraption with another component that is already assembled into a Contraption.
This. Also, if I attach component A to component B, I can also attach Component B to component A, which is incredibly confusing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"In the beginning, MTG Salvation switched to a new forum format.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
It was at that moment that I realized: I'm kinda just making these things up. We can just write the rules the way we want them to work. People will have fun, and people will get it.
In the original Mirrodin, they dropped the last sentence seemingly randomly from Darksteel on, and they never printed the reminder text on any rares.
For us, everyone knows how to use equipment. I don't think we need the last sentence at all. Then, we'll drop the reminder text all together when we get to higher rarities or later in the block.
So basically we agree, but I just had a longer-winded way of saying it
I don't think the non-Component clause is completely necessary, but I like it being there. It prevents me from chaining all my components together and just reassembling the base component when my Contraption gets destroyed (in other words, putting all my components on the one with the cheapest assemble cost and never paying the rest again). This will be less of an issue in limited where my opponent is more likely to disassemble it, but could be a problem in constructed.
Then your opponent can destroy the "Contraption with the cheapest assemble cost" that everything else is attached to instead. It opens up a need for more intricate strategy without closing design space unnecessarily.
Then your opponent can destroy the "Contraption with the cheapest assemble cost" that everything else is attached to instead. It opens up a need for more intricate strategy without closing design space unnecessarily.
But then you run into the "stack" situation where having a number of components on the same artifact gets confusing because they could be attached to each other.
I don't really see a downside to this limitation. For one thing, it forces players to take a good mixture of components and non-components to make their deck work. Plus, most components probably won't benefit from the bonuses other components give them. Sure, there'll be awkward situations where the only artifacts you have are components which are useless, but the same thing is true with equipment.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"In the beginning, MTG Salvation switched to a new forum format.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
It was at that moment that I realized: I'm kinda just making these things up. We can just write the rules the way we want them to work. People will have fun, and people will get it.
Then your opponent can destroy the "Contraption with the cheapest assemble cost" that everything else is attached to instead. It opens up a need for more intricate strategy without closing design space unnecessarily.
Well, I worded that a bit unclearly, but with the chain in my mind, if my opponent did that, then I could just reassemble with the next Component in the chain (chain being the key word).
Also, I think it opens design space in a away. Consider the "Red Wire" example above. I want to attach the wire to my artifact. Attaching another wire to that wire doesn't make sense. On second thought, maybe the wire's not the best example. Consider this:
Copper Bolt1
Artifact - Component
If the assembled Contraption would be disassembled, you may sacrifice ~. If you do, choose one Component of that Contraption. That Component stays attached.
Assemble 1 (1: Attach this to target non-Component artifact you control. That artifact is a Contraption in addition to its other types. Assemble only as a sorcery.)
It wouldn't make sense to attach a bolt to a bolt.
If someone could write an elegant summarization of "Assemble" for the OP, it would be appreciated. Then, if everyone is happy with it, I can put it into the OP and we can move on to other things.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sig by Rivenor
Cube. The best way to play Magic. PERIOD. Come over and check it out. Also, check out my Peasant Split Card Cube.
The World of Pokemon RPG has been rebooted. Come over and check it out.
Sorry, when I posted last I hadn't seen Raptor's and MOON-E's counterexamples. I suppose the non-Component clause is necessary, for flavor reasons too.
Now, concerning "disassemble," the best wording I can think of is:
Disassemble target Contraption (Unattach all Components attached to it.)
...which doesn't need the verb "disassemble." I think we can just use "unattach all Components attached to target Contraption." Unless anyone has a more complex idea for disassembling.
Sorry, when I posted last I hadn't seen Raptor's and MOON-E's counterexamples. I suppose the non-Component clause is necessary, for flavor reasons too.
Now, concerning "disassemble," the best wording I can think of is:
Disassemble target Contraption (Unattach all Components attached to it.)
...which doesn't need the verb "disassemble." I think we can just use "unattach all Components attached to target Contraption." Unless anyone has a more complex idea for disassembling.
I like this simple wording. I also like the verb, but it's only necessary if cards like my aforementioned Copper Bolt are used. (Similarly, "Unequip" could [and possibly will] be used, so...)
It was at that moment that I realized: I'm kinda just making these things up. We can just write the rules the way we want them to work. People will have fun, and people will get it.
Well, let's look at cards like Shuriken. They say "unattach", so that means copper bolt would be "If ~ would become unattached" or something similar.
I don't think it'd work as elegantly without the disassemble verb, as it would need to read "If all Components attached to the assembled Contraption would become unattached". This doesn't necessarily necessitate the use of the disassemble verb, but I don't think we gain a whole lot by not using it. As I said, I can definitely foresee Shuriken getting errata to read "Unequip."
We're all getting our lines crossed, because I've been writing that for a while. Definitely needs to be included.
I included it on mine.
That's not to say there couldn't be a Gremlinoid Component that you can attach to an opponent's artifact to a negative effect. (Obviously something for a later set in the block, or not at all.)
---
I did a little bit of organizing. This'll help us see what groups still needs mechanics, what mechanics we have, and what mechanics I forgot to include.
Overarching Mechanics
Colorless matters.
:sym2w::sym2u::sym2b::sym2r::sym2g:
Achromic—If only colorless mana was spent to [cast ~ or activate this ability], [positive effect]."
"If [W/////colored mana] was spent to [cast ~ or activate this ability], [effect]."
"Spend only colorless mana to [cast ~ or activate this ability]."
Color Groups
:symwu:: Victorian high society and royalty; the light side of invention and technological progress -- structured and for the good of humanity. Humans and Aven.
R "Splinter": Gremlins that dismantle machines built by the higher-class inventors and hobble together fun Contraptions of their own.
Mechanics: Components and Contraptions
Assemble [Cost] ([Cost]: Attach to target non-component artifact. That artifact is a contraption in addition to its other types. Assemble only as a sorcery.)
Components are basically Equipment for artifacts.
The keyword/game verb "assemble(d)."
The game verb "disassemble."
:symub:: Industry barons and the lower classes, that essentially "control" through factories, and the pollution these factories cause. Humans, Assembly-Workers, and maybe another major race.
G "Splinter": Industry and pollution cause the world to change, and nature adapts to it -- sometimes in a toxic manner. (The story of the peppered moth.)
Mechanics: ?
?
:symbr:: Desert inhabitants who make the frontier a very lawless place. Humans and Viashino?
W "Splinter": Desert law enforcers, some of whom pursue justice using chaotic means and some of whom pursue it to self-serving ends. Basically, vigilantes.
Mechanics: Spellshapers
"Discard an [artifact or nonartifact] card: [effect]."
"Discard a card: [effect]. If an [artifact or nonartifact] card was discarded this way, [effect] instead.
:symrg:: (Halfway between the Gruul and the Luddites. They love to smash and shatter things, but they do so with an anti-industrial ideology; they hate the way their world has evolved into a steampunk world and hate those who catalyzed that change. Gremlins can go here, too, along with Humans and...what else?)
U "Splinter": (Doc Browns. These guys are detached from the Victorian high society of inventors, and rather absent-minded, but have a passion for science. They're the flipside of the Luddite-types: rather than railing against the machinery that has changed their lives, they progressively change their own lives to accommodate machinery.)
Mechanics: ?
"...equal to the number of artifact cards in all graveyards."
Disassemble target Contraption
:symgw:: The naturalistic communities of the desert/frontier who have an affinity for growing things, but still build with wood and other non-metallic materials.
B "splinter": Made up of twisted engineers and necromancers living in the slums of the main city and the backwater fens of the frontier that use clockwork and steam to enhance, augment, and reanimate the dead and those who have been mutated by the pollutions of the barons (id est, those that couldn't adapt).
Mechanics: ?
"If [W/U/B/R/G/colored/colorless mana] was used to [cast ~ or activate this ability], [effect]"
Colorless artifacts with "Spend only mana produced by basic lands to cast ~." (Imperiosaur)
For the OP: Assemble is a new keyword partnered with the opposing keyword Disassemble. In this set, there are special artifacts called Components. Rig one of these to an artifact and the resulting contraption can do almost anything. Custom artifacts have never been so easy. Though beware the gremlins. They're more than happy to take apart your contraption's components with their Disassembly keywords.
My original reminder text for assemble was 'Attach to target noncreature, noncomponent artifact.' attempting to avoid the question of attaching powder kegs (see below) to an artifact creature.
Bottled Gremlin 3/
Artifact - Component (r)
Assemble 3
At the beginning of assembled contraption's controller's upkeep, controller sacrifices a component other than ~. If there are no other components on this contraption, destroy this contraption. 'Sabotage!' - every failed inventor, everywhere.
I updated the OP. Since we've already started working on the mechanical identities of the various groups, I think we should continue with that theme. Let's move on to the :symub:/:symg: splinter groups.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sig by Rivenor
Cube. The best way to play Magic. PERIOD. Come over and check it out. Also, check out my Peasant Split Card Cube.
The World of Pokemon RPG has been rebooted. Come over and check it out.
I updated the OP. Since we've already started working on the mechanical identities of the various groups, I think we should continue with that theme. Let's move on to the :symub:/:symg: splinter groups.
Something of note, while I was typing that up, I realized that although the wedge group have mechanical identities, with those identities, each color does a similar thing across all the groups its in. I imagine this is true to some extent of all Magic designs with groups (a color does what a color does), but it seemed particularly true here.
It was at that moment that I realized: I'm kinda just making these things up. We can just write the rules the way we want them to work. People will have fun, and people will get it.
So where should we go from here, we have the bare bones of the setting & Components/Contraptions done, Spellshapers and a Colorless theme planned. What are we going to work on now?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sig by Rivenor
Cube. The best way to play Magic. PERIOD. Come over and check it out. Also, check out my Peasant Split Card Cube.
The World of Pokemon RPG has been rebooted. Come over and check it out.
No, because Contraptions already 'exist'. We're throwing back to a throw forward.
I think he meant that we're "pre-printing" Contraptions in the sense that Steamflogger Boss's wording is from the future (I think that's what he said earlier). Which, speaking of, kind of makes sense now.
"attach target Component you control to target non-Component artifact you control" -> "assemble a Contraption"
So Brass Squire's ability would hypothetically be reworded, too.
"attach target Equipment you control to target creature you control" -> "equip a creature"
It's a good thing Steamflogger Boss gives Riggers haste!
-----
Moving on -- we did something very effective with the faction. Unlike Alara, for example, where every shard had a mechanic that fit all three colors together, we've made a mechanic -- Contraptions -- that fits W/ one way (assembling Contraptions) and R another way (disassembling Contraptions). That's powerful. And it's something that we should tap into for the other four factions.
So what mechanic can we build that fits U/ one way and G another? Collectively, the faction is about industry and the social impact (poverty) and environmental impact (pollution) of industry -- U/ represents the cause and G represents one of the effects, the adaptation of nature to pollution. These three colors, not coincidentally, are also the three Phyrexian colors, representing proliferation and infection. That being said...I think the G splinter should be creature-oriented. One thing I can think of is regeneration with abilites that trigger at regeneration -- instead of dying to pollution, these creatures evolve into even stronger creatures.
Sootmantle MothG
Creature - Insect G: Regenerate ~. Put an evolution counter on it if it’s regenerated this way.
~ gets +1/+1 and has flying as long as it has an evolution counter on it.
1/1
(Regen Beast)3GG
Creature - Beast
Trample 1G: Regenerate ~. Put an evolution counter on it if it’s regenerated this way.
~ gets +2/+2 for each evolution counter on it.
3/3
I hate the wording, but is there something worthwhile in this? B could also get a bit of this, and then B/ would have some mechanic that takes advantage of destroying your own creatures for control/influence. I'm not sold on any of this; I'm just bouncing ideas around.
So what mechanic can we build that fits U/ one way and G another? Collectively, the faction is about industry and the social impact (poverty) and environmental impact (pollution) of industry -- U/ represents the cause and G represents one of the effects, the adaptation of nature to pollution. These three colors, not coincidentally, are also the three Phyrexian colors, representing proliferation and infection. That being said...I think the G splinter should be creature-oriented. One thing I can think of is regeneration with abilites that trigger at regeneration -- instead of dying to pollution, these creatures evolve into even stronger creatures.
Sootmantle MothG
Creature - Insect G: Regenerate ~. Put an evolution counter on it if it’s regenerated this way.
~ gets +1/+1 and has flying as long as it has an evolution counter on it.
1/1
(Regen Beast)3GG
Creature - Beast
Trample 1G: Regenerate ~. Put an evolution counter on it if it’s regenerated this way.
~ gets +2/+2 for each evolution counter on it.
3/3
I like the direction your going, but since we're planning on using Clockwork creatures else where in the set and Clockwork creatures work using +1/+1 counters, maybe they should use +1/+1 counters instead. Something like this...
Sootmantle Moth 2.0G Creature - Insect G: Regenerate ~. If ~ regenerated this way, put a +1/+1 counter on it.
~ has flying as long as it has a +1/+1 counter on it.
1/1
Obivously the Mana and Regen costs may have to be adjusted, but this version opens up more interesting interactions with other cards in the set/block while still conveying the evolution-vibe you were going for. Thoughts?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sig by Rivenor
Cube. The best way to play Magic. PERIOD. Come over and check it out. Also, check out my Peasant Split Card Cube.
The World of Pokemon RPG has been rebooted. Come over and check it out.
Suggestion: Can "Achromic" become "Monochrome"? It just sounds better to me.
I think we need to make a minor adjustment to some of the factions. I think (R/G) should be the frontiersmen and (W/G) the elves. The reason is that making (G/R) the "smash stuff" faction makes it too similar to the (W/U)R splinter faction. I like the idea of "artifacts in graveyard" as a theme since it fits with all colors, but I think the focus should shift to sacrificing your own stuff rather than smashing your opponents. It just gives the color combination more identity beyond the "hate" colors.
Anyway, the regeneration idea is cool and all, but it doesn't really fit with blue and black.
I think whatever we come up with, we should definitely make it about color. Right now, 3 of the 5 factions have an artifact theme. We should make sure (U/B)G is focused on color so that we get the message across about what the set is like.
What if the focus was on land? UB is all about industry, so it abuses lands. Blue augments its lands (Convincing Mirage, Spreading Seas), Black sacrifices its own lands and blows yours up, and green searches for lands to fuel the machine.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"In the beginning, MTG Salvation switched to a new forum format.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
It was at that moment that I realized: I'm kinda just making these things up. We can just write the rules the way we want them to work. People will have fun, and people will get it.
Moving on -- we did something very effective with the faction. Unlike Alara, for example, where every shard had a mechanic that fit all three colors together, we've made a mechanic -- Contraptions -- that fits W/ one way (assembling Contraptions) and R another way (disassembling Contraptions). That's powerful. And it's something that we should tap into for the other four factions.
So what mechanic can we build that fits U/ one way and G another? Collectively, the faction is about industry and the social impact (poverty) and environmental impact (pollution) of industry -- U/ represents the cause and G represents one of the effects, the adaptation of nature to pollution. These three colors, not coincidentally, are also the three Phyrexian colors, representing proliferation and infection. That being said...I think the G splinter should be creature-oriented. One thing I can think of is regeneration with abilites that trigger at regeneration -- instead of dying to pollution, these creatures evolve into even stronger creatures.
It's interesting and I rather like it, but I'm not sure how well it plays into/against the industry of its (U/B) pair, or how well it'd connect to the other G groups. (Raptor has a point about the +1/+1 counters too.)
I agree with how you view what we've done with the (W/U)R group, but the connection between the groups themselves is also important (our groups aren't isolated like Alara's and it should show). For example, G should oppose B in the (U/B)G group in the same way it opposes B in the (G/W)B group. Likewise, G should oppose U in the (U/B)G group in the same way it opposes U in the (R/G)U group. The same applies to every color.
This is both flavorfully and mechanically. For example, in the (W/U)R group, W likes to assemble contraptions for the good of the people, while R likes to disassemble them. In the (R/B)W group, R likes to discard W's artifacts (more or less, for the good of the people), while W likes to discard nonartifacts and stop R from disassembling and discarding the artifacts.
Additionally, this made it apparent to me that in each group, it's the splinter color that is taking action against the main pair, while the main pair just continues doing what it does, as its like-colored splinters take action.
Maybe I'm imagining all this, but it makes sense to me and I think it'd go a long way towards making this a fantastic set/block.
(That's a lot of mana symbols!)
EDIT: But achromic means colorless. Monochrome is one color.
It was at that moment that I realized: I'm kinda just making these things up. We can just write the rules the way we want them to work. People will have fun, and people will get it.
For us, everyone knows how to use equipment. I don't think we need the last sentence at all. Then, we'll drop the reminder text all together when we get to higher rarities or later in the block.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
Comic Book Set
Archester: Frontier of Steam (A steampunk set!)
A Good Place to Start Designing
I don't think the non-Component clause is completely necessary, but I like it being there. It prevents me from chaining all my components together and just reassembling the base component when my Contraption gets destroyed (in other words, putting all my components on the one with the cheapest assemble cost and never paying the rest again). This would be less of an issue in limited where my opponent is more likely to disassemble it, but could be a problem in constructed. "Non-Component" solves that issue without us really losing much.
This is the reminder text, I've been using in MSE as we've discussed it:
(Attach this to target non-Component artifact you control. That artifact is a Contraption in addition to its other types. Assemble only as a sorcery.)
It seems short enough to me, and I figured we wouldn't use it on higher rarities to begin with. I think at this point, the attach mechanic is as basic to Magic as the tapping.
The "non-Component" part was someone's (I can't remember who) solution to the problem of being able to Assemble a contraption with another component that is already assembled into a Contraption.
Simi-Nath'd
Sig by Rivenor
Cube. The best way to play Magic. PERIOD. Come over and check it out. Also, check out my Peasant Split Card Cube.
The World of Pokemon RPG has been rebooted. Come over and check it out.
Set Creation Projects: Archester: Frontier of Steam Come over and check out our AWESOME Steampunk set.
(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)
This. Also, if I attach component A to component B, I can also attach Component B to component A, which is incredibly confusing.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
Comic Book Set
Archester: Frontier of Steam (A steampunk set!)
A Good Place to Start Designing
So basically we agree, but I just had a longer-winded way of saying it
Then your opponent can destroy the "Contraption with the cheapest assemble cost" that everything else is attached to instead. It opens up a need for more intricate strategy without closing design space unnecessarily.
But then you run into the "stack" situation where having a number of components on the same artifact gets confusing because they could be attached to each other.
I don't really see a downside to this limitation. For one thing, it forces players to take a good mixture of components and non-components to make their deck work. Plus, most components probably won't benefit from the bonuses other components give them. Sure, there'll be awkward situations where the only artifacts you have are components which are useless, but the same thing is true with equipment.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
Comic Book Set
Archester: Frontier of Steam (A steampunk set!)
A Good Place to Start Designing
Well, I worded that a bit unclearly, but with the chain in my mind, if my opponent did that, then I could just reassemble with the next Component in the chain (chain being the key word).
Also, I think it opens design space in a away. Consider the "Red Wire" example above. I want to attach the wire to my artifact. Attaching another wire to that wire doesn't make sense. On second thought, maybe the wire's not the best example. Consider this:
Copper Bolt 1
Artifact - Component
If the assembled Contraption would be disassembled, you may sacrifice ~. If you do, choose one Component of that Contraption. That Component stays attached.
Assemble 1 (1: Attach this to target non-Component artifact you control. That artifact is a Contraption in addition to its other types. Assemble only as a sorcery.)
It wouldn't make sense to attach a bolt to a bolt.
EDIT: Plus, what MOON-E said.
Sig by Rivenor
Cube. The best way to play Magic. PERIOD. Come over and check it out. Also, check out my Peasant Split Card Cube.
The World of Pokemon RPG has been rebooted. Come over and check it out.
Set Creation Projects: Archester: Frontier of Steam Come over and check out our AWESOME Steampunk set.
(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)
Now, concerning "disassemble," the best wording I can think of is:
Disassemble target Contraption (Unattach all Components attached to it.)
...which doesn't need the verb "disassemble." I think we can just use "unattach all Components attached to target Contraption." Unless anyone has a more complex idea for disassembling.
I like this simple wording. I also like the verb, but it's only necessary if cards like my aforementioned Copper Bolt are used. (Similarly, "Unequip" could [and possibly will] be used, so...)
This leaves us free to use "disassemble" to mean "unattach all components", though we many not need to.
@Raptor: Just use the written out ability.
Assemble (Cost) (Attach to target non-component artifact. Assemble only as a sorcery.)
WAIT, we forgot one crucial thing. Equipment only goes on your creatures, what about components?
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
Comic Book Set
Archester: Frontier of Steam (A steampunk set!)
A Good Place to Start Designing
We're all getting our lines crossed, because I've been writing that for a while. Definitely needs to be included.
I don't think it'd work as elegantly without the disassemble verb, as it would need to read "If all Components attached to the assembled Contraption would become unattached". This doesn't necessarily necessitate the use of the disassemble verb, but I don't think we gain a whole lot by not using it. As I said, I can definitely foresee Shuriken getting errata to read "Unequip."
I included it on mine.
That's not to say there couldn't be a Gremlinoid Component that you can attach to an opponent's artifact to a negative effect. (Obviously something for a later set in the block, or not at all.)
---
I did a little bit of organizing. This'll help us see what groups still needs mechanics, what mechanics we have, and what mechanics I forgot to include.
Color Groups
:symwu:: Victorian high society and royalty; the light side of invention and technological progress -- structured and for the good of humanity. Humans and Aven.
:symub:: Industry barons and the lower classes, that essentially "control" through factories, and the pollution these factories cause. Humans, Assembly-Workers, and maybe another major race.
:symbr:: Desert inhabitants who make the frontier a very lawless place. Humans and Viashino?
:symrg:: (Halfway between the Gruul and the Luddites. They love to smash and shatter things, but they do so with an anti-industrial ideology; they hate the way their world has evolved into a steampunk world and hate those who catalyzed that change. Gremlins can go here, too, along with Humans and...what else?)
:symgw:: The naturalistic communities of the desert/frontier who have an affinity for growing things, but still build with wood and other non-metallic materials.
My original reminder text for assemble was 'Attach to target noncreature, noncomponent artifact.' attempting to avoid the question of attaching powder kegs (see below) to an artifact creature.
Powder Keg 1
Artifact - Component (c)
Assemble 1
Disassemble ~: Deal 1 damage to target creature.
Bottled Gremlin 3/
Artifact - Component (r)
Assemble 3
At the beginning of assembled contraption's controller's upkeep, controller sacrifices a component other than ~. If there are no other components on this contraption, destroy this contraption.
'Sabotage!' - every failed inventor, everywhere.
Decks:GU Evolver, W Modern Knights
Apprentice of Spell Manipulation
Archester: Frontier of Steam
Wait a minute.
Contraption is already a type...
SO WE'RE JUST DOING A TIME SPIRAL ESKIE THROWBACK YES.
You got 99 attackers but I'm blocking with 1.
The Winner is Judge | 7
This Winner is Also Judge | 6
Club Flamingo | Lots
Sig by Rivenor
Cube. The best way to play Magic. PERIOD. Come over and check it out. Also, check out my Peasant Split Card Cube.
The World of Pokemon RPG has been rebooted. Come over and check it out.
Set Creation Projects: Archester: Frontier of Steam Come over and check out our AWESOME Steampunk set.
(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)
Something of note, while I was typing that up, I realized that although the wedge group have mechanical identities, with those identities, each color does a similar thing across all the groups its in. I imagine this is true to some extent of all Magic designs with groups (a color does what a color does), but it seemed particularly true here.
I think you mean throw forward.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
Comic Book Set
Archester: Frontier of Steam (A steampunk set!)
A Good Place to Start Designing
No, because Contraptions already 'exist'. We're throwing back to a throw forward.
You got 99 attackers but I'm blocking with 1.
The Winner is Judge | 7
This Winner is Also Judge | 6
Club Flamingo | Lots
Sig by Rivenor
Cube. The best way to play Magic. PERIOD. Come over and check it out. Also, check out my Peasant Split Card Cube.
The World of Pokemon RPG has been rebooted. Come over and check it out.
Set Creation Projects: Archester: Frontier of Steam Come over and check out our AWESOME Steampunk set.
(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)
I think he meant that we're "pre-printing" Contraptions in the sense that Steamflogger Boss's wording is from the future (I think that's what he said earlier). Which, speaking of, kind of makes sense now.
So Brass Squire's ability would hypothetically be reworded, too.
It's a good thing Steamflogger Boss gives Riggers haste!
-----
Moving on -- we did something very effective with the faction. Unlike Alara, for example, where every shard had a mechanic that fit all three colors together, we've made a mechanic -- Contraptions -- that fits W/ one way (assembling Contraptions) and R another way (disassembling Contraptions). That's powerful. And it's something that we should tap into for the other four factions.
So what mechanic can we build that fits U/ one way and G another? Collectively, the faction is about industry and the social impact (poverty) and environmental impact (pollution) of industry -- U/ represents the cause and G represents one of the effects, the adaptation of nature to pollution. These three colors, not coincidentally, are also the three Phyrexian colors, representing proliferation and infection. That being said...I think the G splinter should be creature-oriented. One thing I can think of is regeneration with abilites that trigger at regeneration -- instead of dying to pollution, these creatures evolve into even stronger creatures.
Sootmantle Moth G
Creature - Insect
G: Regenerate ~. Put an evolution counter on it if it’s regenerated this way.
~ gets +1/+1 and has flying as long as it has an evolution counter on it.
1/1
(Regen Beast) 3GG
Creature - Beast
Trample
1G: Regenerate ~. Put an evolution counter on it if it’s regenerated this way.
~ gets +2/+2 for each evolution counter on it.
3/3
I hate the wording, but is there something worthwhile in this? B could also get a bit of this, and then B/ would have some mechanic that takes advantage of destroying your own creatures for control/influence. I'm not sold on any of this; I'm just bouncing ideas around.
I like the direction your going, but since we're planning on using Clockwork creatures else where in the set and Clockwork creatures work using +1/+1 counters, maybe they should use +1/+1 counters instead. Something like this...
Sootmantle Moth 2.0 G
Creature - Insect
G: Regenerate ~. If ~ regenerated this way, put a +1/+1 counter on it.
~ has flying as long as it has a +1/+1 counter on it.
1/1
Obivously the Mana and Regen costs may have to be adjusted, but this version opens up more interesting interactions with other cards in the set/block while still conveying the evolution-vibe you were going for. Thoughts?
Sig by Rivenor
Cube. The best way to play Magic. PERIOD. Come over and check it out. Also, check out my Peasant Split Card Cube.
The World of Pokemon RPG has been rebooted. Come over and check it out.
Set Creation Projects: Archester: Frontier of Steam Come over and check out our AWESOME Steampunk set.
(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)
I think we need to make a minor adjustment to some of the factions. I think (R/G) should be the frontiersmen and (W/G) the elves. The reason is that making (G/R) the "smash stuff" faction makes it too similar to the (W/U)R splinter faction. I like the idea of "artifacts in graveyard" as a theme since it fits with all colors, but I think the focus should shift to sacrificing your own stuff rather than smashing your opponents. It just gives the color combination more identity beyond the "hate" colors.
Anyway, the regeneration idea is cool and all, but it doesn't really fit with blue and black.
I think whatever we come up with, we should definitely make it about color. Right now, 3 of the 5 factions have an artifact theme. We should make sure (U/B)G is focused on color so that we get the message across about what the set is like.
What if the focus was on land? UB is all about industry, so it abuses lands. Blue augments its lands (Convincing Mirage, Spreading Seas), Black sacrifices its own lands and blows yours up, and green searches for lands to fuel the machine.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
Comic Book Set
Archester: Frontier of Steam (A steampunk set!)
A Good Place to Start Designing
It's interesting and I rather like it, but I'm not sure how well it plays into/against the industry of its (U/B) pair, or how well it'd connect to the other G groups. (Raptor has a point about the +1/+1 counters too.)
I agree with how you view what we've done with the (W/U)R group, but the connection between the groups themselves is also important (our groups aren't isolated like Alara's and it should show). For example, G should oppose B in the (U/B)G group in the same way it opposes B in the (G/W)B group. Likewise, G should oppose U in the (U/B)G group in the same way it opposes U in the (R/G)U group. The same applies to every color.
This is both flavorfully and mechanically. For example, in the (W/U)R group, W likes to assemble contraptions for the good of the people, while R likes to disassemble them. In the (R/B)W group, R likes to discard W's artifacts (more or less, for the good of the people), while W likes to discard nonartifacts and stop R from disassembling and discarding the artifacts.
Additionally, this made it apparent to me that in each group, it's the splinter color that is taking action against the main pair, while the main pair just continues doing what it does, as its like-colored splinters take action.
Maybe I'm imagining all this, but it makes sense to me and I think it'd go a long way towards making this a fantastic set/block.
(That's a lot of mana symbols!)
EDIT: But achromic means colorless. Monochrome is one color.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
Comic Book Set
Archester: Frontier of Steam (A steampunk set!)
A Good Place to Start Designing