As an EDH player, I can understand why people would want a commander that grants Extort. On the other hand, having the effect on a non-legend means players of other formats could (in theory) have four out and get 16+ instances of Extort for each spell they play (totally impractical, I know, but possible). If you had a way of pulling it off that could be a fun way to win a game, but I can't see it ever happening to me.
@luminum_can If that's true I'm sorry to hear it, although I still think the mechanic will be good. I guess I figured it would work similarly to Cathar's Crusade, which works much better if you drop things into play all at once than one at a time since all of the targets "see" each other at once and thus all benefit. Oh well; I'm still looking forward to finding ways to use it.
I'm sure people have already thought of this, but I can think of at least three ways to have fun with the Evolve mechanic. The first is to put it into a deck with something like Primal Forcemage so that the creatures entering play are bigger than the Evolve creatures already out. The second, which could combo with the first, is to use spells that drop multiple tokens at the same time like Elvish Promenade or Ajani, Caller of the Pride's ultimate; because they all hit at once, as long as the tokens have either P or T higher than the Evolve creatures when they hit Evolve would trigger once for each of them, potentially making the Evolve creatures much larger than the tokens. The third way is to use some sort of mass-flicker effect like Sudden Disappearance; much like example 2, all of the evolve triggers would occur at once for each other larger creature, potentially making them much larger than their counterparts. Sadly, these are a bit awkward to actually pull off, but interesting nonetheless.
Oh, I suppose you could take your chances with something like Mass Polymorph or Warp World too. So there's that.
Hey. Just had a sec to catch up. I'll try to post again later, but I wanted to say that I enjoy the Aven Prayer Wheel's flavor text (the design is good as well) because it reminds me of the 18th century Deists, which is appropriate since they made reference to a "clockmaker god". I don't know if that was your aim, but it fits well.
The only reason I had thought to make Crumbling Infrastructure a land and have it die if it ran out of industry counters was so it would look like it was literally crumbling away but you could invest mana into it to put more counters on it, thus keeping it going. There's probably a way to do something similar while it's an artifact, but if the basic premise is flawed then I don't suppose it matters.
As for the idea, I feel as though someone else may have mentioned something similar, but with so many pages I don't know for sure. This would probably fit into your g/w (b) faction, and could be a legend or just a creature. It would be a druid artificer, and would have: whenever a +1/+1 counter is removed from a creature or a creature with +1/+1 counters on it dies, put a charge counter on ~. and x, remove X charge counters from ~ Put a token into play which is a copy of target creature in a graveyard, except that it is 0/0 and has clockwork X.
Finally, I will be very busy for the next few days and will then likely be AFK for about a week. If I have time I will try to come up with votes between now and then, but if you prefer you may feel free to move forward without me as this is a situation which is largely beyond my control.
I don't really feel like I'm able to give formal votes this early in my participation, but if I may, I have a few questions/comments:
1. OK, I kinda think the idea of clockwork armor is cool as a concept, but I don't really see how it would work mechanically. As I understand it, when you equip the armor you get a +1/+1 counter, but when you attack or block you lose one. It seems to me that a) this means a player can get the benefit without the penalty by swapping the armor among several different creatures, and b) a creature with two instances of Clockwork winds up (no pun intended) suffering double the liability with minimal benefit. It doesn't look as though the armor will make the cut in any case, but it seems to me that if you wanted to make the armor itself work what you actually need is something that attaches for 0 or 1 and gives +1/+1 while equipped but is de-equipped as a triggered action when the creature it's attached to attacks or blocks. Unfortunately, while this works for the flavor it doesn't actually use the Clockwork keyword. No real answer for that, but it's probably moot since it looks like the armor is getting voted out anyway.
2. I have an idea for a rare that uses counters. I don't want to muddy the waters at this point by pitching it, but I had initially thought to make them charge counters. Since it seems to be up for debate, do we philosophically want to use charge counters as the "generic" non-creature counters, or do we want to have specific creatures generate specific types of counters?
3. How would you feel about making Crumbling Infrastructure into a land or artifact land that comes into play with around 3 industry counters on it and removes one each turn, sacrificing itself when it runs out and destroying all lands with industry counters on them when it enters the graveyard? The rest of the card would be as printed. I guess it might seem a little complex, but it does give the idea of "crumbling" a bit more depth.
4. I think the inclusion of Interesting Alliteration or I Have No Idea would make the use of spellslingers more appealing.
5. I love the cane's flavor text.
6. I don't care how or when it makes it into the set, but for flavor alone I love the idea of a self destruct mechanism. It's just SO steampunk.
I leave the final decision to the more senior members of the group, but if I think of anything else I hope you're ok with me posting it.
@Raptor Cool. I look forward to seeing what you do with him. We couldn't decide whether he'd be blue (for the invention/artifact thing) or red (for the lightning thing) or some hybrid of the two.
OK, this is random, but I was just having an odd conversation with a friend and I'm curious: have any of you heard of the inventor Nikola Tesla, and do you think there is any way of making a magic card based upon him? I don't want to distract from the project, but you guys are the only people I know apart from the person I was talking with who might actually have an opinion on this.
Raptor: Obviously I'm pleased that you've decided to run with one of my ideas. I'm reluctant to comment too much upon it until the rest of the group has had time to do so. I will say that by making it an artifact which triggers every time you discard any artifact for any reason you have made the effect more elegant but also much more powerful. I don't play many formats other than Commander these days (been out of work; can't afford to stay current), but I could see a card like that becoming a central theme in a wide variety of decks outside this block.
Regarding firearms, I'm not sure what to think. There are currently six spellslingers at Common, each with a pretty distinct effect. I've been operating on the understanding that a spellslinger is basically a wizard armed with a magic-shooting gun, so from an internal flavor perspective it makes sense that guns would follow that theme. Outside the block the Spellslinger mechanic is most reminiscent of the Spellshaper mechanic, so I guess I can see how someone unfamiliar with the block could wonder how the effect represents "magic gun", but I'm not really sure how to get around that problem apart from name, art, and flavor text. That's not to say that a way doesn't exist, just that I haven't thought of one.
Having said all of that, if the issue is to create a firearm with a variety of potential effects, why not take a riff on Isochron Scepter. Something like this:
Rosencrantz's Fantabulous Rage-Blaster (pat. pending) (OK, I suck at names)
Legendary artifact - equipment 4
Equip 4; Equip only as a sorcery ,T: exile target Instant or Sorcery spell in your hand from the game.
Equipped creature has t,x, discard a card from your hand: you may play a copy of the card exiled with ~ as though cast from your hand. X is the exiled card's converted mana cost. If an artifact was not discarded when using this ability, you may no longer make copies of that card.
Alternately as above, but "if an artifact was not discarded when using this ability, destroy ~"
Obviously, this card could be rather over the top. Input/adjustments are welcome.
Finally, my riff on Sparkspitter. It still needs a bit of work, mainly because I still can't decide whether to focus upon the Spellslinger or Steam-powered mechanics for it. The current draft uses both.
Steamspitter 2(2/R)
Artifact creature - elemental construct
1/3 (2/R),t Discard a card: Put a 3/1 red Elemental creature token named Steam Elemental onto the battlefield. It has trample, haste, and "At the beginning of the end step, sacrifice Steam Elemental." If only colorless mana was spent to activate this ability or the discarded card was an artifact, untap ~.
Ordinarily I try to have at least semi-complete ideas before I post them, but I have three that I'd like the community's input on. Please excuse the fact that these are very rough; I'm trying to polish them, but I'm not sure the best way to go. Fair warning, these are potentially pretty powerful; they might make better rares than uncommons, depending upon price and execution.
1. An artifact (could be an equipment or a component) which lets you draw a fresh card when you discard a card as a result of the equipped permanent's ability.
2. An artifact (could be an equipment or a component) which lets you cast a card at full price (as though it had madness X where X is it's full casting cost) when you discard a card as a result of the equipped permanent's ability.
3. An artifact based upon Sparkspitter. Steamspitter, maybe? I can't really decide how to execute it without ripping off Sparkspitter unless it was an artifact without a body, but it seems to me that something that lets you basically throw little spark (er, steam?) elementals might be pretty cool.
Again, sorry these are so rough. Haven't had time to really develop them yet, but I wanted to get them down before I forgot. Some of the other spellshapers have pretty decent abilities, too; wasn't sure how much you wanted to re-use those designs, though.
EDIT: I suppose 1 and 2 would have to be when you discard a card as a COST (or result?) of the equipped permanent's ability. I haven't really looked, but either phrasing probably has a lot of interactions outside this set as well; madness decks have apparently quite a thing at one time or another. By all means feel free to flesh these out; I'd like to see your take on them.
EDIT 2: If you didn't want to use both, you could probably combine 1 and 2 such that 1 was the artifact bonus for 2 or vice versa.
Um, I feel as though I may have accidentally started something inconvenient when I mentioned guns. I understand that they don't really usually fit with a fantasy setting, but guns and tinkering with them seems to be such a sub-theme in steampunk that I thought they should exist in some form.
If you do decide to include guns, I think Goomba's are the way to go (although I would like to know if anyone liked mine). His designs incorporate the existing Spellslinger mechanic and replicate existing spells and effects, which seems to be in the spirit you're going for. On a more visceral level they "feel" elegant to me, which counts for a lot in my book. I guess my only question is, since you don't want too many guns, is it OK that they're all best when played by red? To me, red feels right for a firearm and for the desired effect, so I think it works well, but I don't claim to speak to balancing.
As for the Assembly Synchronizers, if the concern is that you'll end up with an infinitely large creature, you are correct that the first one still does that the moment you have two. Far less of a problem than it was when it could target itself, of course, but still a potential problem. The second one does feel marginally less elegant, but also avoids this potential pitfall. It's a shame you can't just make it only able to target each Assembly Worker once, but I suppose that would be too wordy
Finally, if you will permit me a bit of foolishness, two things:
First, according to a recent Daily MTG article, spellslinging is a term used by Magic R&D (or at least Zac Hill) to describe playing demo games at tournaments. If at some point there is a Spellslinger in need of a name, I say you name it after him.
Second, a silly little spell I don't expect you to take seriously:
Von Neumann Programming:4UU
Sorcery
Replicate (2/U)(2/U)
Untap each assembly worker in play, then Tap each Assembly Worker in play. For each Assembly Worker tapped in this way, its owner exiles a card in his or her graveyard or a non-Assembly Worker permanent he or she controls, then puts a 1/1 Assembly Worker token onto the battlefield with: t: Target Assembly Worker creature gets +1/+1 until the end of the turn.
(Yes, I know this set doesn't use Replicate, but it fits the flavor for a Von Neumann machine.)
Alternately, if you want to be completely nuts:
Von Neumann Programming: 5UU
Enchantment
During each Upkeep, Untap each assembly worker in play, then Tap each Assembly Worker in play. For each Assembly Worker tapped in this way, its owner exiles a card in his or her graveyard or a non-Assembly Worker permanent he or she controls, then puts a 1/1 Assembly Worker token onto the battlefield with: t: Target Assembly Worker creature gets +1/+1 until the end of the turn.
@Moon-E I'm glad you like the fortification concept, even if the execution has been deemed impractical for now. There was talk early of developing a whole block rather than just a set, so perhaps the concept can be revisited at a later stage of development. As for the guns, I think I have the general mechanic and flavor down; I was just surprised that no actual items representing them had been suggested yet.
On a parenthetical note, I never played it, but a friend of mine told me about an old ccg called Deadlands that was steampunk themed. I haven't thought of his stories in years, but they came to mind the other night. Clearly there is no lack of inspiration already present here, but I thought I would mention it in case anyone else ever heard of it. I gather there was once an RP as well.
I'm a bit surprised to see nothing resembling a gun on any of the lists. Is that deliberate? The language feels a bit clumsy to me, but how about:
Hold-out Derringer: 2
Artifact - Equipment
Flash, Split Second (does split second still exist? It seems like the right flavor...)
If you play ~ in response to an opponent attacking you, it enters play equipped to target creature you control.
Equipped creature has: 1, tap , Discard a card: ~ deals 1 damage to target creature or player. During the phase ~ enters play, If an artifact card was discarded this way this damage has deathtouch.
Equip: 2
Also, an artifact with the name Throttle Gnomes sounds to me like it should have or grant Haste, although I do think that a riff on Bottle Gnomes is a clever touch.
Finally, I'm a little surprised to not see any Fog effects on the list. Perhaps something like:
Steam pellets: 2
Artifact
Sacrifice steam pellets: prevent all combat damage this turn.
On the subject of coming up with components, what would you say is the "pool" of non-component artifacts to which they may be attached? I'm sure this seems like an obvious question, but I don't know when the projected "release date" for this set and thus don't know what artifacts (if any) we will be modifying apart from the ones designed for the set.
Your responses are fair, and obviously I respect your decision. Having said that, please allow me one more chance to make my case, as I feel I may have explained my thoughts poorly the first time.
I never considered the fortifications as alternatives to equipment or components (which, incidentally, I think are brilliant) or other types of artifacts; I imagined them coexisting and improving upon one another both mechanically and thematically. To my mind there is nothing obvious about not wanting them to exist in the same block, as rather than causing confusion or competing for limited design space I believe the mechanics intuitively reenforce one another and work well together.
In a way it is unfortunate that the term for land-equipment is "fortification", as I was actually thinking of them more as factories and machines which alter a particular land to make it more suitable for human use or incorporate a particular land directly as a resource, rather than acting as the sort of "land armor" which the term initially seems to imply. To me, Fortifications in an environment like Archester represent civilization's changing the environment to suit their needs using industry and machines, as represented by the fact that they are artifacts which only work when paired with a particular land and may ultimately destroy or actively hinder the "natural" use of that land in the process. This adds an extra bit of cost/benefit analysis to using them when compared with an artifact which may use mana from any source, while also driving home the idea that people's actions impact the environment itself in ways other than outright land destruction or sacrifice for its own sake. I initially imagined them taking the place of "aura: enchant land" effects (which feel more ephemeral and less industrial to me than a building physically attached to the land) like Mana Purification from your Blue faction and then expanding to include artifacts and even a very few powerful artifact creatures or pieces of equipment which incorporate the land itself into their construction in some way. (That last is obviously a concept for later in the block, when the inevitable giant steam spider mechs and undead steam cyborgs become more prevalent - at least, that's how it tends to happen in lots of the steampunk stories I've read.)
When it comes down to it, I have to agree that the component/contraption mechanic is both more challenging and more diverse in its potential impact than Fortifications are likely to be. While I like the way the flavor of artifacts which directly attach to land in a set where the interaction of society and the environment is a major theme, if you really believe that the three (components, equipment, and fortifications) cannot exist in the same block I certainly agree that you should pursue the components as the most innovative and intriguing one. Despite this, it seems to me that there is room and potential for all three mechanics to thrive.
As of now I have made it to page 41 of 147 and growing, not counting the flavor pages and the conversation linked by Raptor. I'm still enjoying the banter and creative process, but I must admit that my limited time to devote to the reading will likely limit my ability to catch up in a timely manner. Nevertheless, keep up the good work; I hope I get the chance to try this set out when it is finally completed.
Oh, I suppose you could take your chances with something like Mass Polymorph or Warp World too. So there's that.
As for the idea, I feel as though someone else may have mentioned something similar, but with so many pages I don't know for sure. This would probably fit into your g/w (b) faction, and could be a legend or just a creature. It would be a druid artificer, and would have: whenever a +1/+1 counter is removed from a creature or a creature with +1/+1 counters on it dies, put a charge counter on ~. and x, remove X charge counters from ~ Put a token into play which is a copy of target creature in a graveyard, except that it is 0/0 and has clockwork X.
Finally, I will be very busy for the next few days and will then likely be AFK for about a week. If I have time I will try to come up with votes between now and then, but if you prefer you may feel free to move forward without me as this is a situation which is largely beyond my control.
1. OK, I kinda think the idea of clockwork armor is cool as a concept, but I don't really see how it would work mechanically. As I understand it, when you equip the armor you get a +1/+1 counter, but when you attack or block you lose one. It seems to me that a) this means a player can get the benefit without the penalty by swapping the armor among several different creatures, and b) a creature with two instances of Clockwork winds up (no pun intended) suffering double the liability with minimal benefit. It doesn't look as though the armor will make the cut in any case, but it seems to me that if you wanted to make the armor itself work what you actually need is something that attaches for 0 or 1 and gives +1/+1 while equipped but is de-equipped as a triggered action when the creature it's attached to attacks or blocks. Unfortunately, while this works for the flavor it doesn't actually use the Clockwork keyword. No real answer for that, but it's probably moot since it looks like the armor is getting voted out anyway.
2. I have an idea for a rare that uses counters. I don't want to muddy the waters at this point by pitching it, but I had initially thought to make them charge counters. Since it seems to be up for debate, do we philosophically want to use charge counters as the "generic" non-creature counters, or do we want to have specific creatures generate specific types of counters?
3. How would you feel about making Crumbling Infrastructure into a land or artifact land that comes into play with around 3 industry counters on it and removes one each turn, sacrificing itself when it runs out and destroying all lands with industry counters on them when it enters the graveyard? The rest of the card would be as printed. I guess it might seem a little complex, but it does give the idea of "crumbling" a bit more depth.
4. I think the inclusion of Interesting Alliteration or I Have No Idea would make the use of spellslingers more appealing.
5. I love the cane's flavor text.
6. I don't care how or when it makes it into the set, but for flavor alone I love the idea of a self destruct mechanism. It's just SO steampunk.
I leave the final decision to the more senior members of the group, but if I think of anything else I hope you're ok with me posting it.
Regarding firearms, I'm not sure what to think. There are currently six spellslingers at Common, each with a pretty distinct effect. I've been operating on the understanding that a spellslinger is basically a wizard armed with a magic-shooting gun, so from an internal flavor perspective it makes sense that guns would follow that theme. Outside the block the Spellslinger mechanic is most reminiscent of the Spellshaper mechanic, so I guess I can see how someone unfamiliar with the block could wonder how the effect represents "magic gun", but I'm not really sure how to get around that problem apart from name, art, and flavor text. That's not to say that a way doesn't exist, just that I haven't thought of one.
Having said all of that, if the issue is to create a firearm with a variety of potential effects, why not take a riff on Isochron Scepter. Something like this:
Rosencrantz's Fantabulous Rage-Blaster (pat. pending) (OK, I suck at names)
Legendary artifact - equipment
4
Equip 4; Equip only as a sorcery
,T: exile target Instant or Sorcery spell in your hand from the game.
Equipped creature has t,x, discard a card from your hand: you may play a copy of the card exiled with ~ as though cast from your hand. X is the exiled card's converted mana cost. If an artifact was not discarded when using this ability, you may no longer make copies of that card.
Alternately as above, but "if an artifact was not discarded when using this ability, destroy ~"
Obviously, this card could be rather over the top. Input/adjustments are welcome.
Finally, my riff on Sparkspitter. It still needs a bit of work, mainly because I still can't decide whether to focus upon the Spellslinger or Steam-powered mechanics for it. The current draft uses both.
Steamspitter 2(2/R)
Artifact creature - elemental construct
1/3
(2/R),t Discard a card: Put a 3/1 red Elemental creature token named Steam Elemental onto the battlefield. It has trample, haste, and "At the beginning of the end step, sacrifice Steam Elemental." If only colorless mana was spent to activate this ability or the discarded card was an artifact, untap ~.
1. An artifact (could be an equipment or a component) which lets you draw a fresh card when you discard a card as a result of the equipped permanent's ability.
2. An artifact (could be an equipment or a component) which lets you cast a card at full price (as though it had madness X where X is it's full casting cost) when you discard a card as a result of the equipped permanent's ability.
3. An artifact based upon Sparkspitter. Steamspitter, maybe? I can't really decide how to execute it without ripping off Sparkspitter unless it was an artifact without a body, but it seems to me that something that lets you basically throw little spark (er, steam?) elementals might be pretty cool.
Again, sorry these are so rough. Haven't had time to really develop them yet, but I wanted to get them down before I forgot. Some of the other spellshapers have pretty decent abilities, too; wasn't sure how much you wanted to re-use those designs, though.
EDIT: I suppose 1 and 2 would have to be when you discard a card as a COST (or result?) of the equipped permanent's ability. I haven't really looked, but either phrasing probably has a lot of interactions outside this set as well; madness decks have apparently quite a thing at one time or another. By all means feel free to flesh these out; I'd like to see your take on them.
EDIT 2: If you didn't want to use both, you could probably combine 1 and 2 such that 1 was the artifact bonus for 2 or vice versa.
Um, I feel as though I may have accidentally started something inconvenient when I mentioned guns. I understand that they don't really usually fit with a fantasy setting, but guns and tinkering with them seems to be such a sub-theme in steampunk that I thought they should exist in some form.
If you do decide to include guns, I think Goomba's are the way to go (although I would like to know if anyone liked mine). His designs incorporate the existing Spellslinger mechanic and replicate existing spells and effects, which seems to be in the spirit you're going for. On a more visceral level they "feel" elegant to me, which counts for a lot in my book. I guess my only question is, since you don't want too many guns, is it OK that they're all best when played by red? To me, red feels right for a firearm and for the desired effect, so I think it works well, but I don't claim to speak to balancing.
As for the Assembly Synchronizers, if the concern is that you'll end up with an infinitely large creature, you are correct that the first one still does that the moment you have two. Far less of a problem than it was when it could target itself, of course, but still a potential problem. The second one does feel marginally less elegant, but also avoids this potential pitfall. It's a shame you can't just make it only able to target each Assembly Worker once, but I suppose that would be too wordy
Finally, if you will permit me a bit of foolishness, two things:
First, according to a recent Daily MTG article, spellslinging is a term used by Magic R&D (or at least Zac Hill) to describe playing demo games at tournaments. If at some point there is a Spellslinger in need of a name, I say you name it after him.
Second, a silly little spell I don't expect you to take seriously:
Von Neumann Programming:4UU
Sorcery
Replicate (2/U)(2/U)
Untap each assembly worker in play, then Tap each Assembly Worker in play. For each Assembly Worker tapped in this way, its owner exiles a card in his or her graveyard or a non-Assembly Worker permanent he or she controls, then puts a 1/1 Assembly Worker token onto the battlefield with: t: Target Assembly Worker creature gets +1/+1 until the end of the turn.
(Yes, I know this set doesn't use Replicate, but it fits the flavor for a Von Neumann machine.)
Alternately, if you want to be completely nuts:
Von Neumann Programming: 5UU
Enchantment
During each Upkeep, Untap each assembly worker in play, then Tap each Assembly Worker in play. For each Assembly Worker tapped in this way, its owner exiles a card in his or her graveyard or a non-Assembly Worker permanent he or she controls, then puts a 1/1 Assembly Worker token onto the battlefield with: t: Target Assembly Worker creature gets +1/+1 until the end of the turn.
On a parenthetical note, I never played it, but a friend of mine told me about an old ccg called Deadlands that was steampunk themed. I haven't thought of his stories in years, but they came to mind the other night. Clearly there is no lack of inspiration already present here, but I thought I would mention it in case anyone else ever heard of it. I gather there was once an RP as well.
Hold-out Derringer: 2
Artifact - Equipment
Flash, Split Second (does split second still exist? It seems like the right flavor...)
If you play ~ in response to an opponent attacking you, it enters play equipped to target creature you control.
Equipped creature has: 1, tap , Discard a card: ~ deals 1 damage to target creature or player. During the phase ~ enters play, If an artifact card was discarded this way this damage has deathtouch.
Equip: 2
Also, an artifact with the name Throttle Gnomes sounds to me like it should have or grant Haste, although I do think that a riff on Bottle Gnomes is a clever touch.
Finally, I'm a little surprised to not see any Fog effects on the list. Perhaps something like:
Steam pellets: 2
Artifact
Sacrifice steam pellets: prevent all combat damage this turn.
Hmmm. Feels a bit too Common to me...
I never considered the fortifications as alternatives to equipment or components (which, incidentally, I think are brilliant) or other types of artifacts; I imagined them coexisting and improving upon one another both mechanically and thematically. To my mind there is nothing obvious about not wanting them to exist in the same block, as rather than causing confusion or competing for limited design space I believe the mechanics intuitively reenforce one another and work well together.
In a way it is unfortunate that the term for land-equipment is "fortification", as I was actually thinking of them more as factories and machines which alter a particular land to make it more suitable for human use or incorporate a particular land directly as a resource, rather than acting as the sort of "land armor" which the term initially seems to imply. To me, Fortifications in an environment like Archester represent civilization's changing the environment to suit their needs using industry and machines, as represented by the fact that they are artifacts which only work when paired with a particular land and may ultimately destroy or actively hinder the "natural" use of that land in the process. This adds an extra bit of cost/benefit analysis to using them when compared with an artifact which may use mana from any source, while also driving home the idea that people's actions impact the environment itself in ways other than outright land destruction or sacrifice for its own sake. I initially imagined them taking the place of "aura: enchant land" effects (which feel more ephemeral and less industrial to me than a building physically attached to the land) like Mana Purification from your Blue faction and then expanding to include artifacts and even a very few powerful artifact creatures or pieces of equipment which incorporate the land itself into their construction in some way. (That last is obviously a concept for later in the block, when the inevitable giant steam spider mechs and undead steam cyborgs become more prevalent - at least, that's how it tends to happen in lots of the steampunk stories I've read.)
When it comes down to it, I have to agree that the component/contraption mechanic is both more challenging and more diverse in its potential impact than Fortifications are likely to be. While I like the way the flavor of artifacts which directly attach to land in a set where the interaction of society and the environment is a major theme, if you really believe that the three (components, equipment, and fortifications) cannot exist in the same block I certainly agree that you should pursue the components as the most innovative and intriguing one. Despite this, it seems to me that there is room and potential for all three mechanics to thrive.
As of now I have made it to page 41 of 147 and growing, not counting the flavor pages and the conversation linked by Raptor. I'm still enjoying the banter and creative process, but I must admit that my limited time to devote to the reading will likely limit my ability to catch up in a timely manner. Nevertheless, keep up the good work; I hope I get the chance to try this set out when it is finally completed.