[MtG] The Blackhawk set

[Blackhawk748]

Also, are we decided on "empires world" (or "clash of civilizations", or whatever) being the theme of the set?

Im fine with that.

Also Kamigawa had 3 big mechanics that i remember: Bushido, Ninjutsu, and Soulshift. Bushido was for the Samurai (who where typically White and Red) and Soulshift was for Spirits (Green, White and i wanna say Blue) Ninjutsu was a thing in Betrayers of Kamigawa, and it was obviously for Ninjas. I feel like im missing a mechanic.....

That's a good idea, but note that Kamigawa made a lot of design mistakes and was quite poorly received. It did some things well, but not everything Kamigawa did is a good idea.

I honestly feel one of its biggest issues was a lack of MultiColors. Since the set was Humans/Kitsune vs Spirits you'd have thought that colors wouldnt have mattered as much, except that there where no Multi Color cards and so you where kinda limited to, at most, a 2 color deck. Frankly Kamigawa plays best (IMO) as a mono color, so also keep that in mind when your looking at it.

[Elricaltovilla]

That's a good idea, but note that Kamigawa made a lot of design mistakes and was quite poorly received. It did some things well, but not everything Kamigawa did is a good idea.

That's disappointing to me. I liked a lot of Kamigawa and how it played with a lot of the preconceptions that had been established in MTG.

[Blackhawk748]

That's disappointing to me. I liked a lot of Kamigawa and how it played with a lot of the preconceptions that had been established in MTG.

Its a solid block, it just has its problems. I too am a big fan of Kamigawa, but i recognize that its a love/hate kind of block.

[Elricaltovilla]

I think that Empire block sounds pretty good to me. We could have some fun with exploring ways to represent taking over "territory" in game.

[Blue Ghost]

Im fine with that.

Also Kamigawa had 3 big mechanics that i remember: Bushido, Ninjutsu, and Soulshift. Bushido was for the Samurai (who where typically White and Red) and Soulshift was for Spirits (Green, White and i wanna say Blue) Ninjutsu was a thing in Betrayers of Kamigawa, and it was obviously for Ninjas. I feel like im missing a mechanic.....

There were several mechanics in Kamigawa block. Bushido, ninjutsu, and soulshift, along with channel in Saviors of Kamigawa, were all pretty decent. The other mechanics introduced (flip cards, arcane, offering, epic, sweep, hand-size-matters, legendary-matters) all had serious issues.

[Blackhawk748]

There were several mechanics in Kamigawa block. Bushido, ninjutsu, and soulshift, along with channel in Saviors of Kamigawa, were all pretty decent. The other mechanics introduced (flip cards, arcane, offering, epic, sweep, hand-size-matters, legendary-matters) all had serious issues.

I know that Epic and Sweep had serious problems, that Legendary specific stuff only really worked properly inside the block and that Offering was just weird, but what was wrong with Flip Cards (who i see as the grandparents to our current Werewolves and similar cards) Arcane (which i thought was a neat ability) and Hand Size oriented effects?

[Elricaltovilla]

Mind if I pitch an Imperialist themed ability?

Colonize: When you play this card, place a Territory token on target land you don't control. So long as that land has a territory token on it that you placed, you can tap that land for mana or other activated abilities. If you do so, it does not untap until your next untap step.

It's a bit different than just taking control of enemy lands, but the idea would be that you can add or remove these territory tokens in order to manipulate your opponent's mana production, possibly sacrificing them for spell effects and stuff. Just a rough idea for now.

[Blue Ghost]

I know that Epic and Sweep had serious problems, that Legendary specific stuff only really worked properly inside the block and that Offering was just weird, but what was wrong with Flip Cards (who i see as the grandparents to our current Werewolves and similar cards) Arcane (which i thought was a neat ability) and Hand Size oriented effects?

For flip cards, the main problem was aesthetics. Flip cards are just really ugly. And it's also hard to tell which side is up when they're tapped.
Arcane is very parasitic. It's a self-confined mechanic that does not work with any cards outside the block. That's not necessarily a deal-breaker, but it is problematic. Splice also leads to repetitive gameplay.
Hand size oriented effects punish you for playing out the cards in your hand. That feels bad and leads to bad gameplay.

Mind if I pitch an Imperialist themed ability?

Colonize: When you play this card, place a Territory token on target land you don't control. So long as that land has a territory token on it that you placed, you can tap that land for mana or other activated abilities. If you do so, it does not untap until your next untap step.

It's a bit different than just taking control of enemy lands, but the idea would be that you can add or remove these territory tokens in order to manipulate your opponent's mana production, possibly sacrificing them for spell effects and stuff. Just a rough idea for now.

This will play exactly like taking control of enemy lands 95% of the time, with added complexity. And taking control of enemy lands is very problematic. But there's the seed of an idea there. We could look at mechanics to make improvements to your own lands. The fortification mechanic from Future Sight is a possibility, but an artifact-exclusive mechanic might not be a good idea in a wedge set.

[Blackhawk748]

For flip cards, the main problem was aesthetics. Flip cards are just really ugly. And it's also hard to tell which side is up when they're tapped.
Arcane is very parasitic. It's a self-confined mechanic that does not work with any cards outside the block. That's not necessarily a deal-breaker, but it is problematic. Splice also leads to repetitive gameplay.
Hand size oriented effects punish you for playing out the cards in your hand. That feels bad and leads to bad gameplay.

Ok, that makes sense.

This will play exactly like taking control of enemy lands 95% of the time, with added complexity. And taking control of enemy lands is very problematic. But there's the seed of an idea there. We could look at mechanics to make improvements to your own lands. The fortification mechanic from Future Sight is a possibility, but an artifact-exclusive mechanic might not be a good idea in a wedge set.

You could change it to "At the beginning of your upkeep you gain 1 mana of the appropriate type for each Territory counter you have" This could help relive the issues with playing 3 colors as every faction shares at least 1 color.

If someone wants to write that better thatd be great.

[Jallorn]

I think that Empire block sounds pretty good to me. We could have some fun with exploring ways to represent taking over "territory" in game.

Territory is one idea, put I want to toss out for consideration various kinds of power, soft and hard. So things like political pressure, economics, territory, and military might are all kinds of power that can be explored. I guess to some extent, these could line up somewhat with the empire themes. That's probably a good way to do it, actually, with the mechanics being broad enough to fit three into a deck, but with one, maybe two, primary and the third just splashed.

As far as the samurai discussion, we have two factions that both really want samurai, and the samurai creature type always has bushido. This is what I'm trying to reconcile with the fact that having two factions (that share two colors) with bushido, and not giving it to the others is awkward. My two solutions were: give everyone samurai, and tie mechanics to enemy color pairs so that each mechanic is shared between two factions.

I have two further proposals to attempt to reconcile this before I consider whether a redesign of one or more factions might be necessary.

First is to clarify that as a universal mechanic, it doesn't necessarily need to be a dominant one. Bushido doesn't need to be evenly split among the factions, just the colors (and not even entirely then). So the Fae have a single solitary samurai card, but they can play samurai that match their colors from other factions. The Celts and Church likewise have between 1 and 3 samurai cards each, leaving the bulk, maybe ten or fifteen total, to the Kurotaka and the Shogunate. If done this way, we might want to have a universal mechanic for sorceries and instants similarly distributed, and maybe another for artifacts.

The other idea is to return to the enemy color mechanics, but make those exclusively returning mechanics, and make a set of five all new mechanics for each faction's allied colors. I would suggest that the new mechanics all share a similar objective, (Thematically, the expansion of the state's influence. Mechanically, I'm not sure yet but probably some sort of control.) but that each mechanic does it through a different strategy. In this way, you can still mix between factions in draft, since the mechanics are somewhat compatible. This would mean we would have five direct combat mechanics, tied to the enemy colors, the conflict colors, and five strategic control mechanics tied to the allied colors. This would, admittedly, be a large task, and possibly overbloated with deciduous mechanics, but recycling half the mechanics should mitigate that somewhat.

My immediate thought as regards a redesign of factions would be to swap Samurai in the Shogunate for Knights, which might work okay, but I'd still be mildly disappointed about it. Although that does an odd thing with the Shogunate being Tradition based, something that was very important to the samurai when they knew their last days were coming during the Meiji Restoration and the military and political restructuring that was going on in that era. The Kurotaka become, in some fun ways, a reflection of those samurai who rebelled in the face of the fall of the (historical) Shogunate and the rise of the Emperor because they would be the only warring samurai, despite being about war, and not tradition.

[Elricaltovilla]

This will play exactly like taking control of enemy lands 95% of the time, with added complexity. And taking control of enemy lands is very problematic. But there's the seed of an idea there. We could look at mechanics to make improvements to your own lands. The fortification mechanic from Future Sight is a possibility, but an artifact-exclusive mechanic might not be a good idea in a wedge set.

That's a fair critique. However, I personally like messing with other people's lands, and that's a tactic that I'd enjoy playing with.

[Blue Ghost]

There's limited space for mechanics in a set, with five being the average. If we have a mechanic for each of the factions, we won't be able to fit five more enemy-color mechanics. For color overlap, we can do what Khans did, with a subtheme for each enemy pair, without a named mechanic. For reference, the subthemes in Khans for each color pair were:

WB (Abzan/Mardu): Warrior tribal
BG (Abzan/Sultai): Toughness matters
GU (Sultai/Temur): Morph focus
UR (Temur/Jeskai): Spells
RW (Jeskai/Mardu): Tokens

Having bushido as a minor mechanic could possibly work. It will add a bit of complexity, but it won't take up too much space in the set.

Do samurai necessarily have to have bushido? The Kamigawa samurai did, so there is some expectation there, but that's only a sample size of one block. I think there are ways to represent samurai without necessarily using the bushido mechanic.

The exploration of various kinds of power is a theme I'm fully behind. The question is how to translate that to a game of Magic. In Magic, there are already various different kinds of resources to fight over: life, hand, board position, mana, graveyard. Every deck needs each to some extent, but some focus particularly on one resource. I think that could map well to the different kinds of political power. Perhaps each faction has a mechanic that focuses particularly on one kind of resource.

[Blackhawk748]

Do samurai necessarily have to have bushido? The Kamigawa samurai did, so there is some expectation there, but that's only a sample size of one block. I think there are ways to represent samurai without necessarily using the bushido mechanic.

Kamigawa is the only Samurai we have, so yes, all Samurai have Bushido. Does ours have to? No, but it feels like we would be breaking form if we didn't.

The exploration of various kinds of power is a theme I'm fully behind. The question is how to translate that to a game of Magic. In Magic, there are already various different kinds of resources to fight over: life, hand, board position, mana, graveyard. Every deck needs each to some extent, but some focus particularly on one resource. I think that could map well to the different kinds of political power. Perhaps each faction has a mechanic that focuses particularly on one kind of resource.

Hmmm i like this. I can see the Fae playing with the Graveyard. Clan Kurotaka is obviously just trying to destroy the opposition, so they'd be the board position ones (im pretty sure on this, i've never fully grasped MtG Board Position Theory)

[Elricaltovilla]

Hmmm i like this. I can see the Fae playing with the Graveyard. Clan Kurotaka is obviously just trying to destroy the opposition, so they'd be the board position ones (im pretty sure on this, i've never fully grasped MtG Board Position Theory)

As long as it's not the church playing with the graveyard. I feel like that's a bit overdone and we'd just be drawing comparisons to Orzhov.

[Blackhawk748]

As long as it's not the church playing with the graveyard. I feel like that's a bit overdone and we'd just be drawing comparisons to Orzhov.

Very true, lets let the Fae be the horrible Necromancers this time, shall we?

Also i just thought of a decent way to let other factions have Samurai without making Samurai a major theme for them: Mercenary Samurai. So while Kurotaka and the Giants have their own personal samurai, everyone can get some by hiring Mercs. This also helps with our Empires theme as Empires oftentimes hired Mercs to do their dirty work.

[Jallorn]

Now see, I would just do that as an expansion of Samurai being a faction agnostic type, with some such mercenary samurai not strictly being tied to a faction. That seems more than we need, however.

[Amechra]

Some mechanic ideas:

1. Colonize: [Put a colorless Flag artifact token onto the battlefield. It has "2, Sacrifice this artifact: put a land from your hand onto the battlefield."]

This would be used like Investigate, Proliferate, or Populate - it's a tag, rather than a trigger. Sorry for stealing the name - I was too lazy to come up with my own. It's very Green.

2. Settlement: A subtype for Artifacts, much like Equipment - "equips" to a land, and unequips when the land untaps. Generally lets you do a thing instead of untapping the land. Not sold on the name.

3. Fealty {W/U/B/R/G}: [If the Fealty cost was paid, put a Fealty counter of the same color onto X.]

For example, you might have a UG card with a Fealty cost of R/B. Now you can play it either the Celtic or Fae decks without being screwed WRT colors. Or a UR card with Fealty W/G, which can be played with either the Church or the Celtic factions. Fealty counters do nothing on their own - however, other effects might care about it. The term for "has a Fealty counter of color *" is "Fealty to *".

Some ideas are "Destroy target creature with Fealty to Green", "As long as the enchanted creature has Fealty to Red, it has +1/+1 and First Strike", or "If Diehard Stalwart does not have Fealty to White, sacrifice it". Hell, you can even do fancier stuff like "Vigilant Watchman has Protection from any color they have Fealty to".

Synergizes well with...

4. Subvert {cost}: [If the Subvert cost was paid, remove all Fealty counters on target creature and put a Fealty counter with the same color as the mana used to pay the cost onto that creature.]

This is so Blue it hurts... it's removal for cards like Diehard Stalwart, a debuff vs. Auras or other things that want your side to have Fealty to maybe two colors... I could see something that Subverts to Blue, and then takes control of something for as long as it has Fealty to Blue (which, since Fealty to Blue is the "dividing line" between Civilization and the Fae, as well as the Church and the Kurotaka Clan, makes a lot of sense).

5. Plunder: [Untap a land your opponent controls; you gain control of it until it becomes tapped.]

This is meant to mess with Settlement cards above - you put one of your opponent's strongholds into disarray and gain temporary control of the means for production. Very Red.

=---=

I could actually see Fealty as being a very solid base for a set. It's not too complicated (depending on your deck, you only need one or two colors to represent the different Fealty counters - the Celts, for example, would need Green and Red counters.), it's pretty versatile, and can introduce some really interesting tactics. Plus, it has some nice thematic stuff going for it.

[Blackhawk748]

Now see, I would just do that as an expansion of Samurai being a faction agnostic type, with some such mercenary samurai not strictly being tied to a faction. That seems more than we need, however.

Well yes, but certain factions (The Fae most likely) probably wont have many, if any, Samurai of their own, so Mercs could help there. Also it helps add variety to the non Tribal decks as they don't really care about what Creature type a specific creature is.

Some mechanic ideas:

1. Colonize: [Put a colorless Flag artifact token onto the battlefield. It has "2, Sacrifice this artifact: put a land from your hand onto the battlefield."]

Huh, looks kinda like Clue tokens, and i've seen the cool stuff that those can do.

2. Settlement: A subtype for Artifacts, much like Equipment - "equips" to a land, and unequips when the land untaps. Generally lets you do a thing instead of untapping the land. Not sold on the name.

I like this, not entirely sure what we should have them do, but its an interesting mechanic.

3. Fealty {W/U/B/R/G}: [If the Fealty cost was paid, put a Fealty counter of the same color onto X.]

For example, you might have a UG card with a Fealty cost of R/B. Now you can play it either the Celtic or Fae decks without being screwed WRT colors. Or a UR card with Fealty W/G, which can be played with either the Church or the Celtic factions. Fealty counters do nothing on their own - however, other effects might care about it. The term for "has a Fealty counter of color *" is "Fealty to *".

Some ideas are "Destroy target creature with Fealty to Green", "As long as the enchanted creature has Fealty to Red, it has +1/+1 and First Strike", or "If Diehard Stalwart does not have Fealty to White, sacrifice it". Hell, you can even do fancier stuff like "Vigilant Watchman has Protection from any color they have Fealty to".

Neat, it reminds me of Devotion in basic concept. Get a thing for having this color thing, i like it.

4. Subvert {cost}: [If the Subvert cost was paid, remove all Fealty counters on target creature and put a Fealty counter with the same color as the mana used to pay the cost onto that creature.]

This is so Blue it hurts... it's removal for cards like Diehard Stalwart, a debuff vs. Auras or other things that want your side to have Fealty to maybe two colors... I could see something that Subverts to Blue, and then takes control of something for as long as it has Fealty to Blue (which, since Fealty to Blue is the "dividing line" between Civilization and the Fae, as well as the Church and the Kurotaka Clan, makes a lot of sense).

That is just neat, its also nice and simple.

5. Plunder: [Untap a land your opponent controls; you gain control of it until it becomes tapped.]

This is meant to mess with Settlement cards above - you put one of your opponent's strongholds into disarray and gain temporary control of the means for production. Very Red.

Hahaha i love this, "Give me your mana, i need it for something!". However its a fairly potent ability to it needs to either be 1) Expensive, 2) Uncommon, 3) or only proc occasionally. For example "When Stronghold Raiders enters the battlefield Plunder 2."

All in all i like these ideas, though we will most likely need to smooth these out a bit, especially Plunder as that could get nuts.

[Amechra]

As for control (you're forgetting Deck Control - you make mill players sad, Blue Ghost), I kinda want to see a non-Black faction have the Graveyard Control, to be honest. It'd be more distinct, to be honest, since you wouldn't be able to fall back on Zombies.

[Blackhawk748]

As for control (you're forgetting Deck Control - you make mill players sad, Blue Ghost), I kinda want to see a non-Black faction have the Graveyard Control, to be honest. It'd be more distinct, to be honest, since you wouldn't be able to fall back on Zombies.

That would kind of force us to have the Church do it, which brings up the Orzhov comparisons again. However they are WUR so they would play very different. It would probably be a crap ton of Spirits and Clerics.

[Blue Ghost]

Hmmm i like this. I can see the Fae playing with the Graveyard. Clan Kurotaka is obviously just trying to destroy the opposition, so they'd be the board position ones (im pretty sure on this, i've never fully grasped MtG Board Position Theory)

Agreed on Kurotaka being board position; it's a pretty direct mapping from board position to military power. Board position is very broad, and also by far the most important factor in most Limited matches, so we'll want to narrow it down a bit.

I'd like to push the WBG clan to have the graveyard focus. It doesn't exactly match the OP's current vision for it, but a focus on tradition and heritage feels like a natural tie to the graveyard, and those colors are the most graveyard focused.

The URG clan can focus on mana as a representation of scientific advancement. Outpace the other civilizations in technological growth, and be able to play the strongest cards before they can. Green is the color of mana ramp, and red and blue can add an aspect of advancement to it.

The Fae can focus on the hand and drawing cards to represent commerce and wealth. Blue, black and green are the colors most focused on card draw.

Still don't have anything satisfying for the Church. A life focus would be nice, but that really wants to be part black, and blue and red don't care about lifegain at all.

[Jallorn]

I would make fealty an aspect of summoning, so Fealty Black would be, "If black mana was spent to summon this creature, put a Black Fealty token on it."

Fealty as you've described it is, then, another faction agnostic mechanic. But one that still gives unique flavor to each faction based on their color and their interaction with the mechanic. I think removing fealty should primarily be the purview of the Celts and adding another fealty to interact with should belong to the Fae, but I think the Church could maybe dabble in both to a lesser extent.

On the other hand, we could make fealty the mechanic of the Shogunate (as the faction most interested in personal loyalty) make it colorless (you either have fealty or not) and let the other factions interact with it, but not necessarily engage in it themselves. Fealty then, can become a sort of pseudo-tribal mechanic.

An idea for the Shogunate: tradition often manifests as heritage, as inheritance, so what about a mechanic where creatures become artifacts, mostly equipment, on death. The sword that has been in the family for generations or such? Though perhaps that just suggests an equipment that grows stronger as creatures you control die.

I'm also thinking that the Kurotaka should have some sacrifice mechanics, as they are described as being willing to sacrifice for the whole. The first draft of the Kurotaka Deathmage is a good example. Then the Fae can have other sacing, rather than the Deathmage's self sac.

If the Church did graveyard manipulation, we could do both spirits and rebirth, channeling Buddhist reincarnation.

[Amechra]

That would kind of force us to have the Church do it, which brings up the Orzhov comparisons again. However they are WUR so they would play very different. It would probably be a crap ton of Spirits and Clerics.

Or the Celts.

And honestly, I kinda visualized Fealty being the color-fixing mechanic of the set - it lets you broaden your card choice without obligating you to have all three colors of mana. I could see, say, the Church getting White creatures with Fealty to Blue or Red (playable by them and the Kurotaka)., along with their WR cards with Fealty to Blue or Black (shared with Kurotaka) and their UR cards with Fealty to White or Green (shared with the Celts).

[Blackhawk748]

I'm also thinking that the Kurotaka should have some sacrifice mechanics, as they are described as being willing to sacrifice for the whole. The first draft of the Kurotaka Deathmage is a good example. Then the Fae can have other sacing, rather than the Deathmage's self sac.

Im gonna take the second mechanic from Clan Shrine and make it into a Sorcery called Honor the Martyr which you sac a creature and get a number of 1/1 white flying spirit tokens equal to its toughness. Obviously this card isnt exclusive to Kurotaka, but its there. Was also thinking of making a mage that generates Crow tokens based around sacing stuff, though im not sure on the specifics.

[Jallorn]

Or the Celts.

And honestly, I kinda visualized Fealty being the color-fixing mechanic of the set - it lets you broaden your card choice without obligating you to have all three colors of mana. I could see, say, the Church getting White creatures with Fealty to Blue or Red (playable by them and the Kurotaka)., along with their WR cards with Fealty to Blue or Black (shared with Kurotaka) and their UR cards with Fealty to White or Green (shared with the Celts).

Yeah, that's probably better.

It sounds like where we're maybe starting to head is setting wide mechanics, but faction specific strategy. So Kurotaka is battlefield control, the Fae is hand control, the Celts are deck control, the Church is graveyard control, etc. or maybe shifted around, but the point stands. As nations, each faction has the same basic tools, (fealty, colonization, etc.) but they use them differently.

[Blackhawk748]

Yeah, that's probably better.

It sounds like where we're maybe starting to head is setting wide mechanics, but faction specific strategy. So Kurotaka is battlefield control, the Fae is hand control, the Celts are deck control, the Church is graveyard control, etc. or maybe shifted around, but the point stands. As nations, each faction has the same basic tools, (fealty, colonization, etc.) but they use them differently.

I agree, and obviously some factions will focus more on one mechanic over another. Like i dont see Kurotaka using Subvert a whole lot, but using the crap out of Plunder, which is not a bad thing.

[5a Violista]

As for control (you're forgetting Deck Control - you make mill players sad, Blue Ghost), I kinda want to see a non-Black faction have the Graveyard Control, to be honest. It'd be more distinct, to be honest, since you wouldn't be able to fall back on Zombies.

That would kind of force us to have the Church do it, which brings up the Orzhov comparisons again. However they are WUR so they would play very different. It would probably be a crap ton of Spirits and Clerics.

There's other ways you can thematically interact with the graveyard without zombies: Spirits, for example, could work for "graveyard" theme (especially since a large proportion of Japanese and Celtic fae are, in fact, the spirits of the deceased). Clerics or Shamans who gain certain abilities if certain cards are in the graveyard. Maybe some Spirits that can only be played directly from the graveyard and not from the hand? And defeating it in combat would exile it instead of putting it back in the graveyard. Or maybe a mana-cost reduction if cards with a certain ability are in the graveyard. Or a card that can be freely played whenever a card is directly put into the graveyard from the library. Or reincarnation! That's an idea, too.
I don't know: I'm just trying to brainstorm non-zombie ideas. If I recall correctly, Zombies are more of an African/American concept than an Eastern Asia/Western Europe idea.

Aside: have we decided on names or at least temporary names for the factions yet?

[Elricaltovilla]

Orzhov is full of spirit cards though, that's their major mechanic in at least one block and I'm still opposed to accidentally drawing comparison to Orzhov.

[Jallorn]

One consideration, if we go with something like Settlement, is that it will tie up lands, demanding cheaper creatures and spells, a lot more ramp across the colors, or possibly both. I like the idea of Settlement a lot, I just think that we should be aware of how it will limit us.

I also think it should probably be a permanent attachment, excepting destruction of the land. So you can't settle a land with a group of settlers who already have a home. I also don't think they all need to interact with tapping or untapping, as I can imagine a strip mining sort of settlement that lets you sac lands to generate a lot more mana at one time, like three or four, or a Celtic settlement that just gives you an extra mana whenever the land taps due to advanced farming knowledge and oneness with nature. (or actually, "Whenever settled land taps, you may pay 2. If you do, [settlement] generates three mana of a color settled land could generate.")

Lastly, I think that settlements should be a mix of colored and colorless, and ought to be the bulk of artifacts.

I also like the idea of Colonize interacting with your opponent's lands, generating only mana your opponent can create. The problem with everything we've got for Colonize so far though is that it's not terribly broad, I don't see it having enough interactions to demand enough cards to really be a keyword.

RE: Names: Clan Kurotaka is pretty set in stone I'd say, and I've been using Shogunate, Church, Fae, and Celts as placeholders for the names of the other factions until we come up with proper ones.

[Blue Ghost]

Some mechanic ideas:

1. Colonize: [Put a colorless Flag artifact token onto the battlefield. It has "2, Sacrifice this artifact: put a land from your hand onto the battlefield."]

This would be used like Investigate, Proliferate, or Populate - it's a tag, rather than a trigger. Sorry for stealing the name - I was too lazy to come up with my own. It's very Green.

I don't like this. The appeal of investigate is that it gives you something to do with excess mana, turning it into cards. Colonize can also only be used with excess mana, but it gives you... more mana, which is useless when you already have too much.

2. Settlement: A subtype for Artifacts, much like Equipment - "equips" to a land, and unequips when the land untaps. Generally lets you do a thing instead of untapping the land. Not sold on the name.

This sounds a lot like the Fortification type proposed in Future Sight. It has the issue of being an artifact mechanic, which is hard to fit into a multicolor set, but I could see it being worth testing.

3. Fealty {W/U/B/R/G}: [If the Fealty cost was paid, put a Fealty counter of the same color onto X.]

For example, you might have a UG card with a Fealty cost of R/B. Now you can play it either the Celtic or Fae decks without being screwed WRT colors. Or a UR card with Fealty W/G, which can be played with either the Church or the Celtic factions. Fealty counters do nothing on their own - however, other effects might care about it. The term for "has a Fealty counter of color *" is "Fealty to *".

Some ideas are "Destroy target creature with Fealty to Green", "As long as the enchanted creature has Fealty to Red, it has +1/+1 and First Strike", or "If Diehard Stalwart does not have Fealty to White, sacrifice it". Hell, you can even do fancier stuff like "Vigilant Watchman has Protection from any color they have Fealty to".

I am also quite interested in fealty as the universal smoothing mechanic for the set. It seems like it has a lot of potential. But I would also want to playtest it and see if it lives up to that potential before locking it in.
Suggestion: Change it to "This card is all colors used to cast it." And have the effects based on what color it is. Seems more elegant that way.

Synergizes well with...

4. Subvert {cost}: [If the Subvert cost was paid, remove all Fealty counters on target creature and put a Fealty counter with the same color as the mana used to pay the cost onto that creature.]

This is so Blue it hurts... it's removal for cards like Diehard Stalwart, a debuff vs. Auras or other things that want your side to have Fealty to maybe two colors... I could see something that Subverts to Blue, and then takes control of something for as long as it has Fealty to Blue (which, since Fealty to Blue is the "dividing line" between Civilization and the Fae, as well as the Church and the Kurotaka Clan, makes a lot of sense).

Since I imagine most cards will only care about fealty to one or two colors, this will be equivalent to just removing fealty most of the time. I could see a few cards in the set having this kind of ability, but I don't think it's worth devoting a whole keyword.

5. Plunder: [Untap a land your opponent controls; you gain control of it until it becomes tapped.]

This is meant to mess with Settlement cards above - you put one of your opponent's strongholds into disarray and gain temporary control of the means for production. Very Red.

This can be used to effectively remove lands by stealing them and not tapping them. That is problematic. I could see it working with a one-turn limit. This might work as a faction-specific mechanic, though I don't think it fits any of our current proposed factions very well.[/QUOTE]

As for control (you're forgetting Deck Control - you make mill players sad, Blue Ghost), I kinda want to see a non-Black faction have the Graveyard Control, to be honest. It'd be more distinct, to be honest, since you wouldn't be able to fall back on Zombies.

The problem with mill is that it's very all-in, and pretty useless unless your entire deck is dedicated to it. If one of the factions were focused on mill, it wouldn't be able to play well with the other factions. We could have mill be a subtheme in the set, if we have room for it.
Blue and red don't deal with creatures in the graveyard. Though we could possibly make the church graveyard-focused, but with a focus on spells instead of creatures... That sounds kinda cool, actually.

Yeah, that's probably better.

It sounds like where we're maybe starting to head is setting wide mechanics, but faction specific strategy. So Kurotaka is battlefield control, the Fae is hand control, the Celts are deck control, the Church is graveyard control, etc. or maybe shifted around, but the point stands. As nations, each faction has the same basic tools, (fealty, colonization, etc.) but they use them differently.

Not using factions-specific mechanics means giving up on a major advantage of having keywords, namely signposting--pushing players toward a cohesive deck by labeling cards that work synergistically together. We'd have to find another way to push players into the specific factions, and that's going to be a lot harder to do without using keyword mechanics.

Ideally we want to brainstorm a large list of mechanics so we can playtest and choose from the best. Just because a lot of faction-agnostic mechanics have been proposed doesn't mean we have to use them all.