This set needs more artifacts. I wasn't really gearing for this to be an 'Artifacts matters' set, but this is a spin-off of the Mirrodin story-line. I would seem silly for me not to up the number of artifacts and make a few things matter.

That, and this set could use another keyword mechanic. And the Mirran sets have featured artifact-only keyword mechanics, and I've always liked things that could only happen in 'mono-brown'. That's where resourceful came from. The nice thing about Resourceful is that I can play with some "likes artifacts" cards without going hog wild, since resourceful will be dumping extra artifacts on the battlefield. Also nice? Plays well with Affinity, Metalcraft, and sometimes Modular.

Do I have to say 'non-token copy'? Does the 'as' cover things like that?

Hmm. I think it's okay to have the reminder text as it is. The full rules entry would need to say something like "As this permanent enters the battlefield, if it's not a token, put a token copy of it etc etc". I fear this would be a bit too fiddly to play with... I'd probably tear off scraps of paper and write "+1/+1" on them, but people using pennies and things as tokens would find this pretty annoying.

It's a pity because I do appreciate the synergy with affinity and metalcraft.

You know, I did think of this. (I also thought of putting in the clause "If the original would be destroyed [Totem Armor]"... but that was much too clunky, forced players to play the way I wanted them to play... bad idea.) While I would like to believe that most players are considerate, and would normally destroy or sacrifice the copy first, I have to admit that approximately one in five would kill the original, just because he's that kind of jerk. That, and, if I was playing bounce or recursion... well, I'd always sacrifice the non-copy...

Personally, though, I think it's okay, assuming I don't go nuts and flood the file with too many 'resourceful' cards. I hate to say 'the token slot', but there is always that. And what the mechanic is doing is very simple and reasonable, and, I assume, many players would find fun. Some would be aggravated... I think the trade off is worth it this time, though.

Oh, and something I didn't mention in my previous notes is that this mechanic happens to accidentally play into the "Legends versus lots of cards with the same name" theme that somehow ended up in the file. It's easy to imagine reprinting Echoing Ruin in the uncommon slot of this set. I guess that means 4 new echoing cards... and a bunch more ideas that I could waste paragraphs worth of time talking about. There's a lot of good stuff here. I don't think everyone would be happy with it... but you know what they say about pleasing everyone...

Wizards have avoided printing token copies of anything in "the token slot" (even Spawnwrithe or Chronozoa) because the token copies copy the mana cost, but having mana costs on tokens confuses too many people.

I agree this would be very natural and pretty fun if there weren't logistical issues, such as on MTGO. But, well, I still think DFCs were a horrifically bad idea even though they opened up masses of great design space. Logistics do have to matter to some extent.

Ah. Yes. They do have casting costs. Alright, no tokens.

For what it's worth, I'm not planning to do anything crazy here. I kind of expect Dueling Scimitars to be the height of complexity in the common and uncommon slots... and, honestly, that's not much more complex than "A 1/2 green spider creature token with deathtouch". It's definately something in the back of my mind as I go along, though.

Oh, absolutely. It's not even especially complex; it works like a +1/+1 counter you can move around at sorcery speed. I'd love it for an MTGO-only set, and if there was some way to make it work on paper that I haven't thought of, I'd be all for it.