Freaking whirrr! This works stupidly well with the +1/+1 counter thing.

Ah, but both of them need you to find an artifact to put them on that can tap :) And this doesn't grant any way to untap things, so it's not whirr except if you dig out Basalt Monolith. And, frankly, this whole set breaks with Basalt Monolith, so I'm not going to stress over it.

"Connect (: Attach to target atifact you control other than Basalt Monolith. Connect only as a sorcery.)"

(And yes, it should be "not named" instead of "other than". It needn't even be in the reminder text if it's in the rules.)

But that's not a serious suggestion. I agree it seems likely these connectors would be degenerate somewhere, but also I assume you're designing them not to be. And I really want to try them and see how they actually do play :)

I'm thinking of proxying up a Clockwork Wings deck or two for our Games Evening, either this Tuesday or next Tuesday, and giving it a little playtest to see how they work. (Hmm, "Clockwork Wings" was only ever meant to be a playtest name: I need to make sure to think up a better one before too long, or it'll stick...)

I'm in Cambridge tonight (tues) and possibly next week, I'd definitely like to see a proxy deck (or two) if you do FWIW. I hadn't realised it was complete enough, but I'm definitely v curious to see how it plays. Although I haven't had time to proxy any of my or your sets myself, despite keeping meaning to.

I know what you mean about playtest names; I remember several wizards articles saying it always happened to them until they adopted deliberately abstract names for them. FWIW, clockwork wings is definitely a good name: not quite in flavour for magic, but v good for this set.