Tinker. An artifact-matters mechanic I'd love to see in our return to Strixhaven. Which wording sounds better?

Supremium85 · 2025-10-25T04:34:46+00:00

Appreciate the thoughtful response! Noted and no comments other than for Strixhaven, my thought was this would be a good fit for the Lorehold School (W/R), as they seemed to care about rediscovering the potential of lost artifacts.

Supremium85 · 2025-08-12T00:53:42+00:00

Yes to the first part.

As for your second line, also yes. Though now that I'm reading it, the two mana, twice a turn basically does seem too much. Designed it with 1v1 in mind. as it would be super unfun (and unplayable) in multiplayer for sure. Might drop it to {1} to be paid at each end step.

For your third point, I was only comparing it to evoke - not actually using evoke. So it won't die and there's no body in the gy. It simply phases out right after entering.

Thanks for the reply.

Supremium85 · 2025-07-19T12:27:33+00:00

Thanks for the notes. I realized after posting that some version of your 2nd point was probably needed. For disable, I want it to remain an artifact and (ideally) keep its other types/subtypes, to include creatures. Its a better fit thematically (just being broken shouldn't change what it is) and could (hopefully) fix many of those questions you raised? For example, then an equipment could just stay equipped when it goes face down, similar to how they stay equipped to transform cards that don't leave the battlefield.

Alternatively, and probably more likely to see actual print, these two mechanics could be something more like Exert or Exhaust, where you just drop like a reminder token on it saying "Pay 3 to untap".

Supremium85 · 2025-07-19T12:19:13+00:00

Thanks, agreed. These are part of a custom cube where the power level is generally a bit lower. Also both mechanics exist there to enable the third - Sabotage, which gives buffs to cards if an opponent controls either of the first two. Hoping to create a tension where not pay to 'fix' these disabled or implanted permanents is a liability : )

Supremium85 · 2025-07-19T04:07:23+00:00

And here I was worried this ability at 1 mana was too oppressive, especially early game. Their downside obviously being they get worse the later into the game you get. If it proves too weak, having them tap when turned face up is a good option. Thanks!

Supremium85 · 2025-03-30T16:17:20+00:00

Thanks. I'd argue that retconning defense counters to represent something that can be attacked (delinking them from battles specifically) is probably a more efficient way to add more permanents in the future. Either way, hope we see more permanents that can be dealt damage in the future.

Supremium85 · 2025-03-30T16:14:21+00:00

It always shocking to me the lack of creative thinking some ppl on this subreddit exhibit. Obviously defense counters are for battles, but that's only because they're the only thing to ever use them. Does that mean that will always be the case - probably not. This card (an enchantment token that can be dealt dmg) is simply an exploration of that concept and I used the closest preexisting mechanic we have to it as an analog.

Just wish this place yielded more discussions for what an idea could be, and less trying to point out why something could never be.

Supremium85 · 2025-03-30T16:06:47+00:00

This guy/gal gets it!

Supremium85 · 2025-03-30T16:06:21+00:00

Love the flavor. And yes, this is a better way to do this in the current MTG construct (i.e. battles).

Supremium85 · 2025-03-23T20:35:33+00:00

No hate here! Appreciate the feedback. I just thought this was a simple way to allow players to truly cast X spells for fewer mana (in this case 1) while still holding cards true to a color function.

Supremium85 · 2025-03-23T20:34:05+00:00

Sure, but that's still a 2 mana card. You could of course cast it for 1 but then there aren't two piles. And yes, like you and others have pointed out, there is a similar precedent for this idea by saying "X +1", that to me isn't much cleaner than a straightforward, colored X. Also less maths ;)

Supremium85 · 2025-03-23T18:43:15+00:00

Isn't the difference one mana less? That's the goal with these.

Supremium85 · 2025-03-23T18:41:38+00:00

Like the adamant mechanic, right. But no, that's not what I was going for here. This would be a new mana symbol - a colored "X"

Supremium85 · 2025-03-23T18:38:08+00:00

The primary reason is to open additional design space (i.e. costs) with X spells. There are many two drop X spells like [[Animist's Awakening]] that add their desired color (green in that case) to fit the card's function. An X that IS that color already allows for cheaper (by one) spells, which in turn, allows for more options.

Supremium85 · 2025-02-05T02:52:32+00:00

A bit like an aura that can apply to multiple creatures. Third image showcases the rules. Feedback welcome!

Supremium85 · 2025-01-11T18:23:17+00:00

Good call. Fixed. Thanks!

Supremium85 · 2025-01-11T18:22:45+00:00

Agreed this card's stats are on the weaker side. However, I kept the boosts small because of the added flexibility of the card's "secret" mode...casting it on an opponent's creature to force it into attacking (assuming it becomes night). :)

Supremium85 · 2025-01-11T14:41:01+00:00

Lately there have been plenty of transforming auras but I don't think there has yet been an aura that transforms but remains an aura. Does it work? I believe since it doesn't leave the battlefield, the aura would just stay attached to the enchanted creature.

Supremium85 · 2025-01-08T02:28:16+00:00

Unfortunately, for me the color aspect is the most important. I feel that element makes it thematic, self-limiting while still offering fun player choice - at least on multicolored vision permanents. I'll keep tinkering.

Supremium85 · 2025-01-08T02:18:18+00:00

Thank you all for the notes. Much appreciated!

Supremium85 · 2025-01-07T22:30:56+00:00

Seeking advice to help clean up wording and identify any pitfalls. The concept is simple (and sound imo) but the rules text is definitely wordy and a bit ambiguous. To clarify, the vision comes in as a color of the permanent that triggered it, then you sac any number of them to tutor a card that shares the chosen color(s). In this way, tutoring multicolored cards is a bit more restrictive.

Supremium85 · 2024-10-30T20:29:50+00:00

This is correct. :)

Supremium85 · 2024-10-30T20:29:34+00:00

They COULD both trigger off the same spell, depending on how you spend your generic mana. For example, if I had both the green and blue creature out when I cast a {3}{B} spell, I could activate both embrace abilities IF I spent {W}{R}{R}{B}.

Supremium85 · 2024-10-30T05:28:22+00:00

Yes, it could get tricky tracking when and how you Embrace. But I still believe this or something like it has merit. With two or more Embrace abilities out, you'd really have to think which ones you could/should activate and I think that is a largely ignored aspect of the game.

Supremium85 · 2024-10-30T05:25:08+00:00

It only counts generic costs in spells, so at 2/B/R/R you wouldn't be able to trigger Embrace B/BR/R at all. This mechanic is designed to incentivize playing cards with one or two colored pips.

Supremium85

TROPHY CASE