Random thought, but does anyone else think it's totally possible we could see Samut become a planeswalker in Hour? Imagine her getting executed for being a dissenter, and then her spark ignites because of it.
It would balance out the color pie for planeswalkers in this block as well, assuming she would be naya colors and Bolas will be grixis (we would have two instances of each color among all of the planeswalkers), although I understand that kind of perfect balance isn't usually required for a block.
Heck, she could even join the gatewatch to fight Bolas.
Here are the Tarkir symbols I mentioned, as well as an example of the medallion concept. Another thing to keep in mind is that wide is always better than tall with set symbols. It fills up a bit more space on the card and generally looks better.
As for your sets, Ravnica's tricky. The plane itself is a city, so you could mess around with the concept of a city-scape. Picture a rounded horizon with buildings shooting up from it, or something like that.
Guild Wars is even trickier. You might have to go with something a bit more abstract here. Maybe you could do a little call-back to Dissension and take, for example, the RTR symbol, but break it up into two or three pieces, like it was cracked or shattered. That's always a good way to represent internal conflict between a previously peaceful or united people.
This is a pretty interesting inquiry, to which there isn't really a great answer. I usually take an element of the plane I'm visiting (or a set symbol for a previous set on that plane, if that plane has been visited before) and just mess around with it. I find that I like the look of medallions, which essentially places the symbol into a few cascading circles, but that's just me.
Let's take Tarkir, for example. I took the original concept of the silhouette of the symbol being the same for both sets, and went from there. The first symbol I made looked like a dragon with its wings spread as though it was flying towards you, and the second looked like outward-crossing scimitars. The dragon symbol represents the rule of dragons and the scimitar symbol (with the blades facing upward as they cross) represents the clans allying to rise up against the dragons. This fits well with the names of the sets and their themes (Tarkir, then Uprising). Its the pair of symbols I've been the happiest with, and that's kinda the process I went through to design them.
The thing you want to keep in mind is you want as few shapes as possible, amd they should be as big as possible. Lots of tiny lines or corners ends up looking pretty bad on the cards. Also, MSE's symbol renderer can't do pointed corners, they're always rounded. In some cases you can use a layer of the shape that's bigger and set to "border" to create the illusion of a hard-pointed outline, but it's tricky.
I'll try to upload some examples in a bit, along with the Tarkir symbols I mentioned.
Also, if you're interested, I know how to edit the colors of the symbols as well as border thickness in case you want something a little closer to authentic cards or just want some new wacky rarity colors. Just know that that involves messing with code and doing something wrong could screw up the program.
I quite like this mechanic. I agree with a previous comment that they should probably focus more on "whenever one or more +1/+1 counters are put on this creature" than "whenever this creature mutates."
Also there is a small flavor fail that only some of these are Mutants.
Also, this mechanic will end up causing one of two things to happen:
1. A player builds up their creature over many turns, dumping a heck of a lot of mana into it, and then it get Murdered, feeling really bad.
2. Spot removal needs to be toned down a lot to avoid this situation, opening up the door to a format where creature threats are very hard to deal with.
It'll be very difficult to balance the risk vs the reward for this mechanic.
I may have missed that. Where does Maro get into there being a policy change? I know about the intention of making answers better going forward, but is this something else?
He mentioned that they are currently taking steps to change the way they do things so that they don't get themselves into this situation again. This was in a recent Blogatog post.
I imagine Development has gotten chewed out pretty badly about this.
Pros: creating a token works well with a double effect.
Cons:
1. no substantive interaction with prior cards
2. At least the present version is confusing, as all contraptions have the same name, but different text.
(Fix by making all contraption riggers make unique contraption tokens).
3. That's a lot of memory issues (fixed by having unique tokens).
4. Sac 2 or more has to go; make each have a different cost. I.e., "[cost]: assemble a contraption artifact token named "name" with "contraption text". Mind you, this is just create. But yours is just create with an arbitrary cost tacked on.
5. Flavor fail - I cobble a black lotus and bonesplitter to get... whatever my rigger's specialization is? Boring. I cobble 2 contraptions into a contraption and it does less than the previous versions?
Final thought - this effect is doubleable like all token creation effects. But it's not *new*. I proposed assembling a contraption was cobbling a vehicle and equipment to create a contraption artifact creature. It does something *new*. It works with existing cards. It creates new design space.
This doesn't create any new design space. I think we all have ugly baby syndrome with our assemble concepts. So we have to judge it by objective means. Fun? New? Opens design space? Opens deck archetypes?
Watch wolf' designs are FUN! But they're not new, and the contraption deck runs artifacts that cantrip and nothing else. Their card text is irrelevant to the assembly. Final worry - odd cost aside, these create repetitive game play. Your token generators assemble the same thing time and again. They're odd spellshapers. I love spellshapers. But just make a black lotus spellshaper that costs like 3GG and be done with it. No assembly required.
I see your concerns, but there are a few points I disagree with. The first is that it my version of "assemble" is just "create" with a cost tacked onto it. There is actually a bit more to it than that. "Assemble" allows you to create a token, but trace that token's origin to the Rigger (or creature) that assembled it.
The second is that it's not "new." Sure there are plenty of effects that make tokens, even ones with unique effects, but there are no cards that determine the effects of the tokens this way.
Look, I see the problems with this mechanic the same as you, but the truth is that Steamflogger Boss backs us into a corner. It has some mechanical requirements that define what it does in the game AND it sets flavor expectations that are nearly impossible to meet together.
I'd be happy to hear your suggestions as to how it could be done better.
So here's a list of potential effects I've come up with using this mechanic so far. Obviously there will usually be mana costs associated with assembling the Contraptions and activating their abilities, and I tried to weigh them most heavily into red/blue effects, with every other color getting a bit of love.
Common
Each Contraption assembled by ~ has "Sacrifice this artifact: This artifact deals X damage to target creature, where X is the number of artifacts sacrificed to assemble this Contraption. Draw a card."
Each Contraption assembled by ~ has "Sacrifice this artifact: Scry X, where X is the number of artifacts sacrificed to assemble this Contraption. Draw a card."
Each Contraption assembled by ~ has "Sacrifice this artifact: Creatures with power X or less can't block this turn, where X is the number of artifacts sacrificed to assemble this Contraption. Draw a card."
Each Contraption assembled by ~ has "Sacrifice this artifact: Return target card with converted mana cost X or less from your graveyard to your hand, where X is the number of artifacts sacrificed to assemble this Contraption. Draw a card."
Each Contraption assembled by ~ has "Sacrifice this artifact: Target creature gets +X/+X until end of turn, where X is the number of artifacts sacrificed to assemble this Contraption. Draw a card."
Each Contraption assembled by ~ has "Sacrifice this artifact: Exile up to X target cards from your graveyards and you gain X life, where X is the number of artifacts sacrificed to assemble this Contraption. Draw a card."
Each Contraption assembled by ~ has "Sacrifice this artifact: Put a +1/+1 counter on each of up to X target creatures, where X is the number of artifacts sacrificed to assemble this Contraption. Draw a card."
Each Contraption assembled by ~ has "Sacrifice this artifact: Target creature gets -X/-0 until end of turn, where X is the number of artifacts sacrificed to assemble this Contraption. Draw a card."
Uncommon
Each Contraption assembled by ~ has "T: Add X colorless mana to your mana pool, where X is the number of artifacts sacrificed to assemble this Contraption."
Each Contraption assembled by ~ has "Sacrifice this artifact: Return target nonland permanent with converted mana cost X or less to its owner's hand, where X is the number of artifacts sacrificed to assemble this Contraption."
Each Contraption assembled by ~ has "Sacrifice this artifact: Counter target spell unless its controller pays X, where X is the number of artifacts sacrificed to assemble this Contraption."
Each Contraption assembled by ~ is an Equipment in addition to its other types and has "Equipped creature gets +X/+X, where X is the number of artifacts sacrificed to assemble this Contraption," and equip 1.
Each Contraption assembled by ~ is an X/X creature in addition to its other types, where X is the number of artifacts sacrificed to assemble that Contraption.
Rare
Each Contraption assembled by ~ has all activated abilities of artifacts sacrificed to assemble that Contraption.
Each Contraption assembled by ~ has "Sacrifice this artifact: Draw X cards, where X is the total converted mana cost of artifacts sacrificed to assemble this Contraption."
Whenever a creature you control assembles a Contraption, you may have that Contraption enter the battlefield as a copy of an artifact sacrificed to assemble that Contraption, except it's a Contraption in addition to its other types.
For each Contraption you control, you may tap that Contraption rather than pay the cost to activate abilities of that Contraption.
Whenever you sacrifice a nontoken artifact or a Contraption, create a colorless Scrap artifact token with "Sactifice this artifact: Add C to your mana pool."
Okay, I think I've come up with the cleanest way to do Contraptions. Here goes:
"T: This creature assembles a contraption. (Sacrifice two or more artifacts. If you do, create a colorless Contraption artifact token.)"
Wait, but there's nothing here about what Contraptions are? What do they do?
Well, that is determined by the Rigger that assembles them. Let me explain.
Say you have a Rigger that specializes in making contraptions that are dangerous or harmful. That card will look something like:
"Reckless Rigger2R
Creature - Goblin Rigger
Haste T: ~ assembles a Contraption.
Whenever ~ assembles a Contraption, it deals X damage to target creature, where X is the number of artifacts sacrificed to assemble that Contraption.
2/2"
So that's pretty neat, but that ability could be on any artifact-producing ability. How about something more in-depth?
How about an Rigger that wants to make something a bit more interesting?
"Assembly Automator1U
Creature - Vedalken Rigger 1, T: ~ assembles a Contraption.
Each Contraption assembled by ~ has "T: Add X colorless mana to your mana pool, where X is the number of artifacts sacrificed to assemble this Contraption."
1/3"
So let's break down what goes into this mechanic, starting from the card that started it all: Steamflogger Boss.
Most of that card doesn't matter much. What we really care about is the following ability:
"If a Rigger you control would assemble a Contraption, it assembles two Contraptions instead."
This tells us everything that "assemble" needs.
1. "Assemble" is an action performed by a creature, like "fight." This needs to be mechanically relevant, otherwise it simply makes more sense to have the player do the assembling.
2. "Assemble" is an action that is in some way directed towards a Contraption, a type of artifact. Here, we're still in line with "fight" technology ("This creature fights target creature.")
3. "Assemble," specifically "assembling a Contraption" is an action that can be doubled. It's still technically possible with "fight," but it isn't nearly as clean in its execution. This is where "assemble" and "fight" need to diverge in how they work.
4. Contraption is a new type of artifact. This needs to be mechanically relevant.
5. The flavor implies putting things together. This is the most challenging aspect of making the mechanic work.
Okay, so how does that inform my execution? I'll explain:
1. The creatures do the assembling. This is the core of the ability, as it opens up space for "assemble" to work uniquely to any other token-producing ability. Because the creature assembles the Contraption, that creature defines what that Contraption does. This does lead to memory issues, but I'll get to why that won't be as big of a problem as one may think or how we can address that.
2. I was thinking about how having assemble would interact with Contraptions. Are Contraptions cards that are played somehow through the "assemble" ability? If so, how does Steamflogger Boss double that? Are they like meld cards? Does that mean you need two whole pairs of artifacts with the required ability for Steamflogger Boss to even be relevant? All of these questions lead to one conclusion: This is way too many hoops to jump through. It will end up being more than just an A+B mechanic, but something more like an A+B+C+D-and-so-on mechanic, because there are just so many factors needed to make it work. I decided that it needs to be simpler, and that means just making tokens. But how do we differentiate "assemble" from every other token-making mechanic. I decided to come back to this after working out how the tokens will be made and work.
3. "Assemble" needs to be something you can double. Now that we know it will be tokens, this works fine.
4. Contraption is a unique type of artifact. This is where point 1 comes back in. The mechanical identity of a token needs to be consistent. Take Clues for example. They all have "T, Sacrifice: draw a card." The issue is that, flavorfully, Contraptions don't imply anything uniform. In fact, it implies the opposite. Contraptions come off as make-shift machines, each with a unique purpose and function. So how do we represent that on a token? Well, here, Contraptions don't have any inherant abilities. The mechanical identity of Contraptions is that they do what their Rigger designed them to do. Basically, it's the same sort of mechanical identity as Deserts, and pretty similar to the Golem Splicers from Scars of Mirrodin. The main difference here is that Contraptions are noncreature tokens with unique abilities based on the artifacts used to assemble them.
5. Contraptions are the sum of their parts. This is what ties everything together. The Riggers look at what was sacrificed to assemble the Contraptions to determine what the Contraptios do.
So that's what lead me to this final design. Now lets look at the concerns:
1. Memory issues. Whenever a mechanic revolves around creating unique tokens, there are memory issues, especially when those tokens have the same name or origionate from the same mechanic. Embalm works around this by forcing you to exile the creature that gives it its identity, letting you use the creature card to track what the token is. I'm considering exiling the artifacts rather than sacrificing them for this very reason, but I also want a lot of ways to put artifacts into the graveyard for whatever set this goes into. There are also a few other things that can be done to keep track of the abilities. Imagine pop-out markers like the ones in Amonkhet, except woth the name of the Rigger that made the token. That way the player knows what determines the abilities. Conspiracy has also had players use notes to keep track of certain things, and that's worked out fairly well. The point is, we have options here.
2. Design space. Let's be honest. It's very shallow with this mechanic. But if this is the mest we can get to finally execute Contraptions, I think we can squeeze enough designs out for one set. If necessary, having this mechanic only show up at uncommon to reduce the number of necessary designs is something I would be willing to do. That also helps with the memory issues, as the fewer different riggers are in your deck, the less you have to keep track of.
3. Support. This set would need some really heavy artifact support to create the sheer quantity of artifacts needed to make this mechanic relevant. It's not impossible, as Kaladesh/Aether Revolt have accomplished exactly this. It's just that Contraptions would be the central pillar that the entire set is built around because of how demanding it is.
4. It's complex. Yup. More complex things have happened though.
Anyway, what do you guys think? Have I done it? how can this be better?
Sirena, the Dual-Edge2UB
Planeswalker - Sirena
Loyalty - 2
+1: Target opponent gains control of ~. Draw two cards.
0: Return ~ to its owner's hand. Each player discards a card.
-2: Target player discards two cards.
Sirena, The Dual-Edge3UB
Planeswalker - Sirena
Loyalty - 3
At the beginning of your end step, if you haven't activated a loyalty ability of ~ this turn, return her to her owner's hand and her owner draws two cards.
+1: Target opponent gains control of ~. If that player is ~'s owner, that player draws a card.
-2: Target opponent loses 3 life. ~'s owner looks at the top card of your library. He or she may put that card into your graveyard.
How would yall go about designing a set where every card is specifically designed for constructed? Like if booster draft wasn't an intended use for the set, how would you structure it, design it, and distibute it while keeping things open-ended for deck construction?
If the only reason to add the "non(color)" clause is to make the spell cheaper, it's not good design. If the spell needs to be cheaper for the needs of a play environment, then just make it cheaper, not cheaper-but-also-worse-against-every-possible-deck-that-could-run-that-color. I see no reason why black should be bad at killing black things.
My point with everything being somehwo outclassed is this: Look at each spell you designed. Then take a moment and consider if there is anything more worth running. I would bet money that any green deck would much rather just splash white or black for Path to Exile or Fatal Push than run a fight card in modern. For commander, green really doesn't even care about spot removal, and even in the cases where it does want to remove something, Song of the Dryads and Beast Within both exist.
For Supress, I can think of a few different counterspells I would run instead, especially since blue is one of the most dangerous colors in commander. Arcane Denial is the first that comes to mind.
I haven't ever seen Victim of Night get played in modern, but that's just me I suppose. Still, Fatal Push and Dismember exist, so why bother trying to make another black modern killspell? And commander decks would likely play Hero's Downfall or another catch-all killspell rather than dance around with conditional killspells.
Yes, there are situations where your cards would be better, but I don't see that happening often enough to justify running those cards over others.
Sphinx of the Final Word, Griselbrand, Thundermaw Hellkite, and Kalonian Hydra all seem like good choices for mythics.
I would be fairly suprised if there were no dragonstorm.deck cards. Bogardan Hellkite, Scourge of Valkas, Dragonstorm, Dragon Tempest, etc.
Windreader Sphinx at rare would also fit pretty well, considering how many flying creatures there will be in the set.
It would balance out the color pie for planeswalkers in this block as well, assuming she would be naya colors and Bolas will be grixis (we would have two instances of each color among all of the planeswalkers), although I understand that kind of perfect balance isn't usually required for a block.
Heck, she could even join the gatewatch to fight Bolas.
What do you guys think?
As for your sets, Ravnica's tricky. The plane itself is a city, so you could mess around with the concept of a city-scape. Picture a rounded horizon with buildings shooting up from it, or something like that.
Guild Wars is even trickier. You might have to go with something a bit more abstract here. Maybe you could do a little call-back to Dissension and take, for example, the RTR symbol, but break it up into two or three pieces, like it was cracked or shattered. That's always a good way to represent internal conflict between a previously peaceful or united people.
Let's take Tarkir, for example. I took the original concept of the silhouette of the symbol being the same for both sets, and went from there. The first symbol I made looked like a dragon with its wings spread as though it was flying towards you, and the second looked like outward-crossing scimitars. The dragon symbol represents the rule of dragons and the scimitar symbol (with the blades facing upward as they cross) represents the clans allying to rise up against the dragons. This fits well with the names of the sets and their themes (Tarkir, then Uprising). Its the pair of symbols I've been the happiest with, and that's kinda the process I went through to design them.
The thing you want to keep in mind is you want as few shapes as possible, amd they should be as big as possible. Lots of tiny lines or corners ends up looking pretty bad on the cards. Also, MSE's symbol renderer can't do pointed corners, they're always rounded. In some cases you can use a layer of the shape that's bigger and set to "border" to create the illusion of a hard-pointed outline, but it's tricky.
I'll try to upload some examples in a bit, along with the Tarkir symbols I mentioned.
Also, if you're interested, I know how to edit the colors of the symbols as well as border thickness in case you want something a little closer to authentic cards or just want some new wacky rarity colors. Just know that that involves messing with code and doing something wrong could screw up the program.
Also there is a small flavor fail that only some of these are Mutants.
Also, this mechanic will end up causing one of two things to happen:
1. A player builds up their creature over many turns, dumping a heck of a lot of mana into it, and then it get Murdered, feeling really bad.
2. Spot removal needs to be toned down a lot to avoid this situation, opening up the door to a format where creature threats are very hard to deal with.
It'll be very difficult to balance the risk vs the reward for this mechanic.
I imagine Development has gotten chewed out pretty badly about this.
The second is that it's not "new." Sure there are plenty of effects that make tokens, even ones with unique effects, but there are no cards that determine the effects of the tokens this way.
Look, I see the problems with this mechanic the same as you, but the truth is that Steamflogger Boss backs us into a corner. It has some mechanical requirements that define what it does in the game AND it sets flavor expectations that are nearly impossible to meet together.
I'd be happy to hear your suggestions as to how it could be done better.
Common
Each Contraption assembled by ~ has "Sacrifice this artifact: This artifact deals X damage to target creature, where X is the number of artifacts sacrificed to assemble this Contraption. Draw a card."
Each Contraption assembled by ~ has "Sacrifice this artifact: Scry X, where X is the number of artifacts sacrificed to assemble this Contraption. Draw a card."
Each Contraption assembled by ~ has "Sacrifice this artifact: Creatures with power X or less can't block this turn, where X is the number of artifacts sacrificed to assemble this Contraption. Draw a card."
Each Contraption assembled by ~ has "Sacrifice this artifact: Return target card with converted mana cost X or less from your graveyard to your hand, where X is the number of artifacts sacrificed to assemble this Contraption. Draw a card."
Each Contraption assembled by ~ has "Sacrifice this artifact: Target creature gets +X/+X until end of turn, where X is the number of artifacts sacrificed to assemble this Contraption. Draw a card."
Each Contraption assembled by ~ has "Sacrifice this artifact: Exile up to X target cards from your graveyards and you gain X life, where X is the number of artifacts sacrificed to assemble this Contraption. Draw a card."
Each Contraption assembled by ~ has "Sacrifice this artifact: Put a +1/+1 counter on each of up to X target creatures, where X is the number of artifacts sacrificed to assemble this Contraption. Draw a card."
Each Contraption assembled by ~ has "Sacrifice this artifact: Target creature gets -X/-0 until end of turn, where X is the number of artifacts sacrificed to assemble this Contraption. Draw a card."
Uncommon
Each Contraption assembled by ~ has "T: Add X colorless mana to your mana pool, where X is the number of artifacts sacrificed to assemble this Contraption."
Each Contraption assembled by ~ has "Sacrifice this artifact: Return target nonland permanent with converted mana cost X or less to its owner's hand, where X is the number of artifacts sacrificed to assemble this Contraption."
Each Contraption assembled by ~ has "Sacrifice this artifact: Counter target spell unless its controller pays X, where X is the number of artifacts sacrificed to assemble this Contraption."
Each Contraption assembled by ~ is an Equipment in addition to its other types and has "Equipped creature gets +X/+X, where X is the number of artifacts sacrificed to assemble this Contraption," and equip 1.
Each Contraption assembled by ~ is an X/X creature in addition to its other types, where X is the number of artifacts sacrificed to assemble that Contraption.
Rare
Each Contraption assembled by ~ has all activated abilities of artifacts sacrificed to assemble that Contraption.
Each Contraption assembled by ~ has "Sacrifice this artifact: Draw X cards, where X is the total converted mana cost of artifacts sacrificed to assemble this Contraption."
Whenever a creature you control assembles a Contraption, you may have that Contraption enter the battlefield as a copy of an artifact sacrificed to assemble that Contraption, except it's a Contraption in addition to its other types.
For each Contraption you control, you may tap that Contraption rather than pay the cost to activate abilities of that Contraption.
Whenever you sacrifice a nontoken artifact or a Contraption, create a colorless Scrap artifact token with "Sactifice this artifact: Add C to your mana pool."
"T: This creature assembles a contraption. (Sacrifice two or more artifacts. If you do, create a colorless Contraption artifact token.)"
Wait, but there's nothing here about what Contraptions are? What do they do?
Well, that is determined by the Rigger that assembles them. Let me explain.
Say you have a Rigger that specializes in making contraptions that are dangerous or harmful. That card will look something like:
"Reckless Rigger 2R
Creature - Goblin Rigger
Haste
T: ~ assembles a Contraption.
Whenever ~ assembles a Contraption, it deals X damage to target creature, where X is the number of artifacts sacrificed to assemble that Contraption.
2/2"
So that's pretty neat, but that ability could be on any artifact-producing ability. How about something more in-depth?
How about an Rigger that wants to make something a bit more interesting?
"Assembly Automator 1U
Creature - Vedalken Rigger
1, T: ~ assembles a Contraption.
Each Contraption assembled by ~ has "T: Add X colorless mana to your mana pool, where X is the number of artifacts sacrificed to assemble this Contraption."
1/3"
So let's break down what goes into this mechanic, starting from the card that started it all: Steamflogger Boss.
Most of that card doesn't matter much. What we really care about is the following ability:
"If a Rigger you control would assemble a Contraption, it assembles two Contraptions instead."
This tells us everything that "assemble" needs.
1. "Assemble" is an action performed by a creature, like "fight." This needs to be mechanically relevant, otherwise it simply makes more sense to have the player do the assembling.
2. "Assemble" is an action that is in some way directed towards a Contraption, a type of artifact. Here, we're still in line with "fight" technology ("This creature fights target creature.")
3. "Assemble," specifically "assembling a Contraption" is an action that can be doubled. It's still technically possible with "fight," but it isn't nearly as clean in its execution. This is where "assemble" and "fight" need to diverge in how they work.
4. Contraption is a new type of artifact. This needs to be mechanically relevant.
5. The flavor implies putting things together. This is the most challenging aspect of making the mechanic work.
Okay, so how does that inform my execution? I'll explain:
1. The creatures do the assembling. This is the core of the ability, as it opens up space for "assemble" to work uniquely to any other token-producing ability. Because the creature assembles the Contraption, that creature defines what that Contraption does. This does lead to memory issues, but I'll get to why that won't be as big of a problem as one may think or how we can address that.
2. I was thinking about how having assemble would interact with Contraptions. Are Contraptions cards that are played somehow through the "assemble" ability? If so, how does Steamflogger Boss double that? Are they like meld cards? Does that mean you need two whole pairs of artifacts with the required ability for Steamflogger Boss to even be relevant? All of these questions lead to one conclusion: This is way too many hoops to jump through. It will end up being more than just an A+B mechanic, but something more like an A+B+C+D-and-so-on mechanic, because there are just so many factors needed to make it work. I decided that it needs to be simpler, and that means just making tokens. But how do we differentiate "assemble" from every other token-making mechanic. I decided to come back to this after working out how the tokens will be made and work.
3. "Assemble" needs to be something you can double. Now that we know it will be tokens, this works fine.
4. Contraption is a unique type of artifact. This is where point 1 comes back in. The mechanical identity of a token needs to be consistent. Take Clues for example. They all have "T, Sacrifice: draw a card." The issue is that, flavorfully, Contraptions don't imply anything uniform. In fact, it implies the opposite. Contraptions come off as make-shift machines, each with a unique purpose and function. So how do we represent that on a token? Well, here, Contraptions don't have any inherant abilities. The mechanical identity of Contraptions is that they do what their Rigger designed them to do. Basically, it's the same sort of mechanical identity as Deserts, and pretty similar to the Golem Splicers from Scars of Mirrodin. The main difference here is that Contraptions are noncreature tokens with unique abilities based on the artifacts used to assemble them.
5. Contraptions are the sum of their parts. This is what ties everything together. The Riggers look at what was sacrificed to assemble the Contraptions to determine what the Contraptios do.
So that's what lead me to this final design. Now lets look at the concerns:
1. Memory issues. Whenever a mechanic revolves around creating unique tokens, there are memory issues, especially when those tokens have the same name or origionate from the same mechanic. Embalm works around this by forcing you to exile the creature that gives it its identity, letting you use the creature card to track what the token is. I'm considering exiling the artifacts rather than sacrificing them for this very reason, but I also want a lot of ways to put artifacts into the graveyard for whatever set this goes into. There are also a few other things that can be done to keep track of the abilities. Imagine pop-out markers like the ones in Amonkhet, except woth the name of the Rigger that made the token. That way the player knows what determines the abilities. Conspiracy has also had players use notes to keep track of certain things, and that's worked out fairly well. The point is, we have options here.
2. Design space. Let's be honest. It's very shallow with this mechanic. But if this is the mest we can get to finally execute Contraptions, I think we can squeeze enough designs out for one set. If necessary, having this mechanic only show up at uncommon to reduce the number of necessary designs is something I would be willing to do. That also helps with the memory issues, as the fewer different riggers are in your deck, the less you have to keep track of.
3. Support. This set would need some really heavy artifact support to create the sheer quantity of artifacts needed to make this mechanic relevant. It's not impossible, as Kaladesh/Aether Revolt have accomplished exactly this. It's just that Contraptions would be the central pillar that the entire set is built around because of how demanding it is.
4. It's complex. Yup. More complex things have happened though.
Anyway, what do you guys think? Have I done it? how can this be better?
WOTC: No bans.
Me: Time to buy Saheelis and cats I guess... *proceeds to buy expensive cards*
WOTC: Lol jk, Cat's banned.
Me: well nOW WHAT DO I DO WITH THESE SAHEELIS THANKS WOTC FOR THE MISINFORMATION MY WALLET'S A LOT LIGHTER NOW FOR NO REASON
/frustration
I do wonder if Saheeli will still be viable in standard. Hopefully it will, but can't trust a hope these days I guess.
Does that improve things a bit?
Planeswalker - Sirena
Loyalty - 2
+1: Target opponent gains control of ~. Draw two cards.
0: Return ~ to its owner's hand. Each player discards a card.
-2: Target player discards two cards.
Planeswalker - Sirena
Loyalty - 3
At the beginning of your end step, if you haven't activated a loyalty ability of ~ this turn, return her to her owner's hand and her owner draws two cards.
+1: Target opponent gains control of ~. If that player is ~'s owner, that player draws a card.
-2: Target opponent loses 3 life. ~'s owner looks at the top card of your library. He or she may put that card into your graveyard.
My point with everything being somehwo outclassed is this: Look at each spell you designed. Then take a moment and consider if there is anything more worth running. I would bet money that any green deck would much rather just splash white or black for Path to Exile or Fatal Push than run a fight card in modern. For commander, green really doesn't even care about spot removal, and even in the cases where it does want to remove something, Song of the Dryads and Beast Within both exist.
For Supress, I can think of a few different counterspells I would run instead, especially since blue is one of the most dangerous colors in commander. Arcane Denial is the first that comes to mind.
I haven't ever seen Victim of Night get played in modern, but that's just me I suppose. Still, Fatal Push and Dismember exist, so why bother trying to make another black modern killspell? And commander decks would likely play Hero's Downfall or another catch-all killspell rather than dance around with conditional killspells.
Yes, there are situations where your cards would be better, but I don't see that happening often enough to justify running those cards over others.