Clockwork Wings: Recent Activity
| Clockwork Wings: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics | Skeleton | Mechanic ideas - artifacts | Setting | Proxies for printing | Power sync | Decklists |
Recent updates to Clockwork Wings: (Generated at 2025-05-01 01:12:09)
Jack: What I was worried about flavour-wise, but not wanting to prejudice by mentioning in the initial question, was whether "Contaminated" evokes "biochemical/poisonous contamination" rather than "irradiated".
Nice thought on how to keep symbols and names, but five (or six or seven) new pools feels somehow worse than one new pool that can have five/six/seven different things in it. It's still an idea I'll bear in mind.
I agree "aviator" is an excellent creature type.
Has the card changed? The flavour seems good to me now.
I'm not sure about symbols. The symbols would be so flavourful I really want them, but may not be as intuitive when you first see it. Probably wait to see how the mechanic evolves. One possibility would be to say "Add ☢ to your radiation pool". Then your squeeze in the symbol and the name, and if they're always matched, I don't think there's an extra cognitive load, I think people will instinctively assume they all act like the mana pool.
(I think there's a dramatic laser-warning sign that would do for all sorts of radiation, but it doesn't seem to be the default one.)
Given that, as Alex stated
are the two untap colours AND that 
is one of the tapping colours; Torque kinda makes sense as generated by the tap-untap-tap-untap-tap-etc.
I think Steamflogger Boss may be screwed. I thought from the moment I saw it that the joke was entertaining, but that "assemble a contraption" was something that was unlikely to ever have a meaning in magic rules, and our difficulties here, and Aaron Forsythe's admission that they didn't have anything in mind, seem to bear that somewhat out.
I want to include it somehow and agree that it's a welcome challenge, but I think we likely to end up having to compromise somehow...
Suggested constraints for contraptions:
--
I will also keep any steampunk mechanics that occur to me in mind and send them on to you :)
EDIT: Hm. Perhaps if riggers tend to do non-repeatable it makes Boss relevant. Although, it still leaves the question of why it says "if a rigger would assemble a contraption" rather than "if you would assemble a contraption". It sounds more like dealing damage than doing anything to cards. (I don't think a creature with "T: exile target creature" can be described as "if a creature exiles another creature" can it?) It seems to imply lots of creatures can assemble equipment, but riggers are especially good at it. But if all cards that assemble equipment say so, it seems unfair only riggers get the bonus; it feels like it should be like equipment, where any creature can use equipment, but kor do it better. But what does assembling a contraption mean if anyone can do it? Should there be cards that say "1. Artefact -- Contraption. Assemble -- Tap a creature: exile two artefacts, ~ gains all the abilities of both of them?" maybe that would work but I still don't like it.
But if you can live without that, you could imagine:
Creature -- Goblin Rigger. Nibelung Steamflogger. 3R. 2/2. When ~ comes into play, you may exile two non-creature artefacts and assemble a contraption artefact token which has all the abilities of both.
Tribal Sorcery -- Rigger. Crazed tinkering. 1U. Exile two non-creature artefacts and assemble a contraption artefact token which has all the abilities of both.
Ooh, steampunk. Comments as of current state in multiverse.
I really love the flavour. It really captures steampunk.
Connectors are great. Whether they'll be comprehensible will need testing, but I think the basic idea is great for giving the feel of assembling a complex THING, without being too unmanageable or unmagiclike.
Hierarchy is cool. I feel like it might not be that different to "if you have 3 other creatures at all", but it feels right, and gives you a good reason to play small creatures.
Not sure about collaborate: simple and straightforward, but maybe too straifghtforward? EDIT: On reflection it probably plays well (cf. exalted), it just makes several collaborate creatures feel a bit samey, but that may not be bad.
Quirky, intermittent artefacts: I agree this is excellent flavour.
Power pool: I agree it's risky to introduce lots more resources, but also I agree the idea seems pretty balanced. I think it will definitely need updating, but I think the basic idea is (to my surprise) very sound. I agree with the large risk of memory problems, but also I think that your strategy of having the resources be comparatively rare solves it fine without the need for more complicated rules. If you've only one or two sources of power, then you won't be trying to juggle so many you'll forget: you typically will use them immediately anyway. I agree having some way of having them less linear is good, but also that the alternate costs fix make it much, much better.
I like all the energy flavours except for torque: I like the idea of torque, but I'm not positive it works as U/G.
I mostly like the mechanic/flavour/creature types for the colours.
Produced by Aerodynamic Insight and probably more to come.
I agree with Alex. If you could only cast/activate with power it would be very parasitic but by providing alternate costs he has avoided this pitfall. Also, there is precedent for adding new resource types - look at Snow Mana and that is much more parasitic given that most snow mana activation costs don't have a choice for alternate costing.
Re parasitism, that is a big concern. But you'll note that the large majority (75%ish) of cards which use power can still be used even if you have no other cards, usually because of activation costs of the form "[Torque] or
". This is very deliberate for precisely this reason.
As for 5 more different resources... yeah, that was GreenOpal's problem with it too. But generally, in how many games do you ever pass priority with unspent mana? Fewer than 1%, I'd reckon. Power types should be similar - at least that's my aim.