The Shattered Realm: Mechanical

[slimytrout]

Let's decide on one or the other.

Definitely agree -- two aura-centric mechanics is one more than the set needs. I think probably the biggest factor to consider when deciding between the two is whether folks think there should be a major tribal element. To make tradition work in limited, the set probably wants to be either five monocolored tribes or five two-color tribes (potentially mixed with five two-color classes), since any deck that's playing traditions is going to want a critical mass of the appropriate creature type. Meanwhile glorify/favor doesn't put as many archetype constraints on the set, but does add a good bit of overall complexity due to having to keep track of a whole new "zone" (yes, I know the sideboard isn't a zone, but wish effects basically turn it into one) and also doesn't work as well with EDH.

[Venedrex]

Let's decide on one or the other.

Definitely agree -- two aura-centric mechanics is one more than the set needs. I think probably the biggest factor to consider when deciding between the two is whether folks think there should be a major tribal element. To make tradition work in limited, the set probably wants to be either five monocolored tribes or five two-color tribes (potentially mixed with five two-color classes), since any deck that's playing traditions is going to want a critical mass of the appropriate creature type. Meanwhile glorify/favor doesn't put as many archetype constraints on the set, but does add a good bit of overall complexity due to having to keep track of a whole new "zone" (yes, I know the sideboard isn't a zone, but wish effects basically turn it into one) and also doesn't work as well with EDH.

Yeah, that sounds good. I'm game for either mechanic. Honestly, I'm really happy with all the ideas and contributions by everyone and I want to say how much I appreciate every single person who has been suggesting ideas, because that has helped us understand what we need to do and refine the mechanics. Iron sharpens iron and all that I suppose.

In my head, I think that the max amount of named mechanics a set should have is probably around 5, and minimum probably around 3. Which means that we are now at 3, whichever is decided on, leaving potential room for 0-2 more mechanics. Personally I think 5 is more than nesseccary, so I kind of think aiming for 4 seems reasonable, but we could stop at 3.

[slimytrout]

Was on a bus yesterday so had some time to read through the creative thread and also think a bit, and came to a few conclusions:

1) It doesn't seem like the original conception of the set was to be a faction/tribal set, which might lean away from tradition and toward glorify
2) Whichever is chosen as the third mechanic, there's no mechanic that currently focuses on the "depths" -- this seems like a really cool area to me, since it would be a scary dark place but would also have a bunch of awesome stuff that's fallen from above. Is there a way of playing into this risk/reward space?

Maybe something like (just spitballing here):

Descend X (keyword action): Reveal the top X cards of your library. Choose a nonland card from among them and put it into your hand. If you do, you lose life equal to its mana value. Put the rest into your graveyard.

[Venedrex]

Was on a bus yesterday so had some time to read through the creative thread and also think a bit, and came to a few conclusions:

1) It doesn't seem like the original conception of the set was to be a faction/tribal set, which might lean away from tradition and toward glorify
2) Whichever is chosen as the third mechanic, there's no mechanic that currently focuses on the "depths" -- this seems like a really cool area to me, since it would be a scary dark place but would also have a bunch of awesome stuff that's fallen from above. Is there a way of playing into this risk/reward space?

Maybe something like (just spitballing here):

Descend X (keyword action): Reveal the top X cards of your library. Choose a nonland card from among them and put it into your hand. If you do, you lose life equal to its mana value. Put the rest into your graveyard.

That is a good point, having something to represent that makes sense. The only thing I see missing from the set at this point is a mana sink mechanic. My only concerns about glorify at this point is the flexibility ratio, with learn you can rummage, so my only concern would be players not being able to have enough favors in their sideboard. But I think that can be solved one way or another.

I did have another thought about glorify as well.
Could we flavor it a little more dramatically? (Just spit balling here, take this with a lump of salt)
Destinies?? Would be basically the same thing, but they would be legendary auras that represent pivotal moments or a creature reaching the zenith of their power or completion of their purpose.

And maybe, the creature can only have one destiny, but you can then make it repeatable unlike learn where you don't want the creature to keep fetching more lessons over and over, if you can only ever have one destiny, you can bring it back if you do the thing but you won't be getting extra card advantage per se. Maybe each creature has its own destiny, or only one destiny can be on a creature at a time?

Kind of like partner but with auras?

.

Rampaging Rubyhorn 2RR
Creature - Beast (R)
Haste
Whenever Rampaging Rubyhorn attacks, glorify it. (Choose a Favor card in your graveyard or outside the game. You may cast it targeting this creature for its Glory cost.)
3/3

Rampaging Rubyhorn 2RR
Creature - Beast (R)
Haste
Destined to Sunder the Earth (When this creature fulfills its destiny, you may put Sunder the Earth into your hand from your library, then shuffle.)
Whenever Rampaging Rubyhorn attacks, fulfill its destiny.
3/3

///

Sunder the Earth
Legendary Enchantment — Aura Destiny (R)
Enchanted creature gets +2/+0 and has trample.
When Sunder the Earth enters the battlefield, destroy target nonbasic land. Creatures without flying can't block this turn.
Destined


Selfish Cavalier 2B
Creature - Human Knight (C)
Menace
When Selfish Cavalier enters the battlefield, glorify it. (Choose a Favor card in your graveyard or outside the game. You may cast it targeting this creature for its Glory cost.)
2/2

Selfish Cavalier 2B
Creature - Human Knight (C)
Menace
When Selfish Cavalier enters the battlefield, fulfill its destiny. (Choose a Destiny card in your graveyard or outside the game. You may cast it targeting this creature for its Destined cost.)
2/2

Kind-Hearted Pixie
Creature - Faerie Cleric (C)
Flying, lifelink
At the beginning of your end step, if you have six or more life than your starting life total, fulfill its destiny. (Choose a Destiny card in your graveyard or outside the game. You may cast it targeting this creature for its Destined cost.)
1/2

////

Bring Healing to the World
Legendary Enchantment — Aura Destiny (U)
Creatures you control get +1/+1.
Destined

[slimytrout]

Oh yeah, glorify was very much a first pass at the flavor -- not intended to be a final draft, I just needed something to call it that got across the basic idea.

And I definitely hear you about the need to have enough in your sideboard, but that's what the ability to rebuy from the graveyard is for -- if you glorify a creature and then it dies, you can reuse that aura. Obviously sometimes you run out if the board stalls out, but ideally games would be moving fast enough that before you run out either a) your opponent would die or b) your creature would die. Maybe there's a bit more creature sacrifice than usual (doesn't even have to rise to the level of a whole archetype, but could) to help you get your favors/destinies into the graveyard if you need to recast them.

I'm not sure why it's necessary to have only one aura on each creature though, since (at least to my mind) there would probably want to be two different draft archetypes for glorify/destiny/whatever it's called -- one which is about putting all your auras on one creature (lots of targetted effects and ways to protect creatures) and one which is about having lots of creatures with a single aura on them (lots of creatures that ETB glorified and effects that count number of enchanted creatures).

[Venedrex]

Oh yeah, glorify was very much a first pass at the flavor -- not intended to be a final draft, I just needed something to call it that got across the basic idea.

And I definitely hear you about the need to have enough in your sideboard, but that's what the ability to rebuy from the graveyard is for -- if you glorify a creature and then it dies, you can reuse that aura. Obviously sometimes you run out if the board stalls out, but ideally games would be moving fast enough that before you run out either a) your opponent would die or b) your creature would die. Maybe there's a bit more creature sacrifice than usual (doesn't even have to rise to the level of a whole archetype, but could) to help you get your favors/destinies into the graveyard if you need to recast them.

I'm not sure why it's necessary to have only one aura on each creature though, since (at least to my mind) there would probably want to be two different draft archetypes for glorify/destiny/whatever it's called -- one which is about putting all your auras on one creature (lots of targetted effects and ways to protect creatures) and one which is about having lots of creatures with a single aura on them (lots of creatures that ETB glorified and effects that count number of enchanted creatures).

Gotcha, that makes sense. As long as it is kept to ETB primarily like learn than you are right, it doesn't really need the greater restriction. I'll stop messing with it, I think its good as is in that case. I do appreciate the fact that glorify solves the card disadvantage issue of auras by making them come with the creature.

Selfish Cavalier 2B
Creature - Human Knight (C)
Menace
When Selfish Cavalier enters the battlefield, glorify it. (Choose a Favor card in your graveyard or outside the game. You may cast it targeting this creature for its Glory cost.)
2/2

I'd also be down for the living weapon take on auras as well too. I think we can rule out traditions, but I think we should go with glorify or the living weapon aura mechanic.

Morbid Fascination 1UB
Enchantment - Aura (U)
Enchant creature
Enchanted creature gets +1/+0 and has menace and "When this creature dies, you may draw cards equal to its power."
Incarnate 1UB (You may cast this card for its incarnate cost. When you do, create a 1/1 colorless Spirit creature token. This aura enters the battlefield attached to that token.)

[slimytrout]

To be clear, you should feel very free to suggest (or make) any changes you'd like -- my stance is that collaborative projects like these work better when people don't feel like they are the "owners" of ideas they came up with but rather that they are giving them to the community. I was merely explaining why I felt like the issue of running out of favors/destinies was not going to be too much of an issue if the environment is designed properly. Which segues nicely to...

I came up with a quick list of pros/cons of glorify vs. incarnate:

Glorify:

Pros:
Fun mix/match feeling which increases replayability (sometimes selfish cavlier is a Cursed Minotaur and sometimes it's a 3/3 menace lifelink that costs 2wb and sometimes it's a 2/2 menace that cantrips and has curiosity that costs 2ub etc. etc.)
Goes on any card type (well, probably not land, but I guess you never know)
Increases as-played of auras/enchantments without causing card disadvantage/blowouts

Cons:
Hard to balance due to mix/match possibilities
Substantial complexity cost for players ("Playability Affected," per Maro's Storm Scale entry for Learn)
Not great interactions with EDH due to lack of sideboards
Potential feel-bad due to running out of favors in sideboard

Incarnate:

Pros:
Increases play decisions for auras (skill-testing to determine when to play around removal spells)
Allows more auras in limited decks since they can be played as creatures
Relatively straightforward

Cons:
Auras played as creatures will often not be that exciting (most auras don't give more than +2/+2)
A bit like a less-powerful version of bestow (similar choice of aura vs. creature, but in this case the aura doesn't "become" a creature)

Would love to hear people's thoughts (either about which one they think is best or about edits/additions to the pros/cons list):

[Venedrex]

To be clear, you should feel very free to suggest (or make) any changes you'd like -- my stance is that collaborative projects like these work better when people don't feel like they are the "owners" of ideas they came up with but rather that they are giving them to the community. I was merely explaining why I felt like the issue of running out of favors/destinies was not going to be too much of an issue if the environment is designed properly. Which segues nicely to...

I came up with a quick list of pros/cons of glorify vs. incarnate:

Glorify:

Pros:
Fun mix/match feeling which increases replayability (sometimes selfish cavlier is a Cursed Minotaur and sometimes it's a 3/3 menace lifelink that costs 2wb and sometimes it's a 2/2 menace that cantrips and has curiosity that costs 2ub etc. etc.)
Goes on any card type (well, probably not land, but I guess you never know)
Increases as-played of auras/enchantments without causing card disadvantage/blowouts

Cons:
Hard to balance due to mix/match possibilities
Substantial complexity cost for players ("Playability Affected," per Maro's Storm Scale entry for Learn)
Not great interactions with EDH due to lack of sideboards

Incarnate:

Pros:
Increases play decisions for auras (skill-testing to determine when to play around removal spells)
Allows more auras in limited decks since they can be played as creatures
Relatively straightforward

Cons:
Auras played as creatures will often not be that exciting (most auras don't give more than +2/+2)
A bit like a less-powerful version of bestow (similar choice of aura vs. creature, but in this case the aura doesn't "become" a creature)

Would love to hear people's thoughts (either about which one they think is best or about edits/additions to the pros/cons list):

Absolutely. The reason I lean towards moving away from Traditions is due to the fact that they would warp the whole set into a more tribal focused thing, which is potentially undesirable. I think at this point we almost need to just get down to brass tax and start playtesting with some of these mechanics to see how they work.

What I like the most about glorify is that it solves the card advantage issue. I also like the fact that it can get different things as mentioned. What I would be somewhat concerned about is the differences between glorify and learn. I understand that auras are not instants/sorceries, but I am hesitant to lose the looting effect of Learn and replace it with a recursion ability. My only fear is that players will run out of auras to fetch from the sideboard, and the graveyard recursion won't be as flexible or exiting as the chance to replace a draw. I guess what I mean is, I think there was a reason learn was worded the way it is, and I suspect that tweaking it may cause issues.

But I could be entirely wrong, and we just don't know until we see the cards in action. I just get nervous about tutoring mechanics, and combining that with recursion seems dangerous.

[Venedrex]

More food for thought.

What do you think about Undying/Persist for auras?

(When this aura is put into a graveyard from play, if it had no lore counters on it, return it to the battlefield under its owner's control with a lore counter on it.)

The lore counter could be anything, charge counter, legacy counter, whatever. Lore might be bad because sagas could be confusing.

I guess the biggest question is whether it even makes sense versus just making auras with, etb draw a card. I guess it means you know what you are getting.

Cons: It isn't particularly original.
It's a bit wordy.
It's probably a 5 or a six on the Storm Scale, so a little questionable.
It could be repetitive.

Pros:
It prevents the infamous 2-for-1 of auras, but it doesn't keeping coming back like Traditions. It also doesn't need to warp the set into having a bunch of a certain creature type, and it seems pretty easy to balance.
I think auras are the only permanent type more likely to actually make use of undying than creatures, as they can be collateral damage of a removal spell not even aimed at them.

Persistent Rise
Enchantment — Aura (U)
Enchant creature
Enchanted creature gets +1/+1 and has flying.
Tradition (When this aura is put into a graveyard from play, if it had no lore counters on it, return it to the battlefield under its owner's control with a lore counter on it.)

[folding_music]

was thinking about a similiar concept to this, mmmm. wonder if something like this is broken? eventually the chain'd be broken. plus this way you wouldn't have to a put a counter on an aura; I still remember those Urza's Destiny ones being a huge mess!

Cross-stitch (When this aura is put into a graveyard from the battlefield, you may return it to the battlefield attached to a permanent with higher mana value than it was attached to before.)

[Venedrex]

was thinking about a similiar concept to this, mmmm. wonder if something like this is broken? eventually the chain'd be broken. plus this way you wouldn't have to a put a counter on an aura; I still remember those Urza's Destiny ones being a huge mess!

Cross-stitch (When this aura is put into a graveyard from the battlefield, you may return it to the battlefield attached to a permanent with higher mana value than it was attached to before.)

Hmm, that's neat. What if it went down in mana value, like it goes from the eldest/most senior creatures to the youngest members of the group?

Tradition
(When enchanted creature leaves the battlefield, you may return this aura to the battlefield attached to a creature with lesser mana value than it was attached to before.) The chain would still get broken like you said, but it would mean that the smaller the creature you put the aura on the less chance you have to recur it. So if you slap your aura on a puny 1 mana creature, it can only go down to a token before the cycle is broken.

But if you put an aura on an expensive creature, you get rewarded by prolonging the chain. Which goes against the typical play pattern of putting a bunch of auras on a 1 mana 1/1 with hexproof. Now you may want to put an aura on a bigger creature, and it's OK if it dies because the aura will go to the next creature down. Assuming you have another creature. This would also mean we don't have to have the creature type drawback for the recursion since the restriction is now mana values, thus not warping the set into a tribal set when it is already a enchantment matters set.

[slimytrout]

This is definitely an interesting twist on the mechanic that allows it to be much more flexible than the tribal version. I agree with Venedrex that counting down is better than counting up -- if you count up then the incentive is to put it on a small creature, but then your opponent doesn't necessarily need to kill that creature and so it might never do anything. I definitely think it's worth playtesting, but my one concern is that it could end up being quite swingy -- if you manage to land a tradition on a six drop with a reasonable board of creatures then you are very likely to get a lot of uses out of it and overwhelm your opponent, which means that the auras will have to be costed somewhat conservatively, but if you're already behind on board then the tradition ability is not very useful and you just have a weak aura. Obviously there have been win-more mechanics in the past (raid and cipher being two that come to mind), but since exalted already plays into the space of trying to build out a wide board and attacking with a single buffed threat I worry about adding another mechanic that incentivizes that style of play.

[Venedrex]

This is definitely an interesting twist on the mechanic that allows it to be much more flexible than the tribal version. I agree with Venedrex that counting down is better than counting up -- if you count up then the incentive is to put it on a small creature, but then your opponent doesn't necessarily need to kill that creature and so it might never do anything. I definitely think it's worth playtesting, but my one concern is that it could end up being quite swingy -- if you manage to land a tradition on a six drop with a reasonable board of creatures then you are very likely to get a lot of uses out of it and overwhelm your opponent, which means that the auras will have to be costed somewhat conservatively, but if you're already behind on board then the tradition ability is not very useful and you just have a weak aura. Obviously there have been win-more mechanics in the past (raid and cipher being two that come to mind), but since exalted already plays into the space of trying to build out a wide board and attacking with a single buffed threat I worry about adding another mechanic that incentivizes that style of play.

That's a really good point about it eating into the space Exalted is occupying. What do you think about the Undying/Persist for Auras? Is that worth exploring at all?

[slimytrout]

That version definitely seems easier to balance since its ceiling is not as high. Here's a few more riffs on it, just in the spirit of experimentation;

1) Flashback/embalm for auras -- you can cast or activate it from the graveyard as a one-time thing and after that it goes into exile. Has some memory/logistical issues.
2) The "Gryff's Boon" mechanic -- you can keep bringing it back from your graveyard (either as an activation or an alternative cost) an unlimited number of times. More powerful than 1) and more flexible than the version where it comes back automatically but probably still balanceable using the built-in knob of what the "flashback" cost is.
3) "Persist" for auras, except that the counters have a real meaning -- they give enchanted creature -1/-1. In this version, you could choose to bring it back any number of times, except it keeps accumulating counters, so when you play it it's "+1/+1 and lifelink," when it comes back the first time it's "lifelink," the second time it's "-1/-1 and lifelink," etc. etc. It plays somewhat similar to the most recent version of tradition, but instead of encouraging you to get the most "use" out of it by having your large creatures die, there's a real cost to bringing it back over and over again.

[Venedrex]

Inspired by what slimytrout said last post, I've been thinking. I was listening to a Limited Resources podcast the other day, where they talked about the worst draft archetype of all time. Guess what it was? Auras/Equipment. Marshall summed it up as, Auras are too risky (the 2 for 1) and equipment are too expensive (for good reason, because they stay on the battlefield and you have to be careful not to make them too powerful).

But regardless, the end result is that the archetype never works according to them. Of course they might be exaggerating, but I think most would agree that of the types, auras and equipment are the weakest overall (with the exception of cards that are just generically good. If Embercleave or Rancor were made into creature versions with equivalent stats they would still be busted.)

So what if we hit two birds with one stone? The aforementioned counters on the persist auras? What if they went on equipment too?

I'm not sure exactly how it would be worded, and this is just a random thought experiment, so don't take it too seriously if it is completely dumb.

Inheritance
When this (aura/equipment) becomes unattached, you may attach it to a creature you control if able. Whenever this permanent becomes attached to a creature, put an entropy counter on it.

The above doesn't really make much sense, so lemme try to explain.

For auras, this lets you dodge the 2 for 1 aspect by having them stick around, but they get weaker over time whenever they come back. For equipment, it's the same thing, but twice as fast if you move the equipment around normally. So if you equip a sword with this to a creature and swing in with two creatures, your opponent doom blades the equipped creature, the sword moves to the unequipped creature, but it now has an entropy *name is a WIP* counter on it, so it only gets +1/+1 and haste instead of +2/+2 and haste.

If this was an aura, the same thing happens.
The difference is if you move the equipment, you get an entropy counter as well, representing wear and tear. So this hopefully makes auras and equipment more powerful short term, which is theoretically useful for games of limited, but weaker long term, so they don't become a nightmare to deal with. In other words, you get to keep your card advantage and not have to take a turn off reequipping your equipment, but as time goes on, your enchantments and artifacts begin to lose their potency making them gradually weaker. like slimytrout mentioned.

But you are still probably happy to have an aura that gives your creature +1/+1 and vigilance instead of +2/+2 and vigilance, or even just vigilance instead of no aura. Or an equipment that gets weaker every time you move it around, but you don't have to waste your turn 3/4 to reequip it. Trading getting blown out for a gradual decline in power.

And maybe the mechanic is just the entropy counters, and auras and equipment could use them differently, maybe with equipment you can choose to snap on the equipment like an aura when it etbs, but you have to put an entropy counter on it. Or the equip cost could be, put X number of entropy counters on this equipment.

I guess the concise way to present this idea is Wear // Tear.

[void_nothing]

This is getting well into the woods, but I think the consensus is we need some kind of Aura recursion mechanic in order to make an Aura theme work, because of the classic two-for-one problem. The one I like best at this time is glorify/favor/destinies, whichever execution we decide to go with. I don't think anything with a "gets worse over time" dynamic should be a marquee mechanic.

[Venedrex]

This is getting well into the woods, but I think the consensus is we need some kind of Aura recursion mechanic in order to make an Aura theme work, because of the classic two-for-one problem. The one I like best at this time is glorify/favor/destinies, whichever execution we decide to go with. I don't think anything with a "gets worse over time" dynamic should be a marquee mechanic.

That's fair.

My only suggestions would be that we slightly tweak the mechanic to be more like Learn in order to prevent repetitive gameplay. Basically just swap the cast from graveyard to, discard to draw a card. I get nervous with tutoring mechanics, and graveyard recursion mixed with tutoring is a powerful combination.

[void_nothing]

I mean, in this case, the repetition is part of the point. But we've all made our cases and we can table this for now with the understanding that we need to do something to fill this slot.

[slimytrout]

Thanks void, I agree that we needed to get back on track. At some point we should start actually designing with these mechanics to get a better sense of how they would look on cards, because I think that's going to be the best/only way to decide what's going to work.

[void_nothing]

Couldn't agree more! While we're at it, is it time to concurrently look at the thread where we were doing the flavor and worldbuilding again?

[Venedrex]

Thanks void, I agree that we needed to get back on track. At some point we should start actually designing with these mechanics to get a better sense of how they would look on cards, because I think that's going to be the best/only way to decide what's going to work.

Yeah, and I'm down for going with Glorify. Especially if we have lots of eyes on it. The reason I've been hesitant isn't because I think it is a bad idea, but because I think it may be a challenging idea to balance, at least for me. If others want to lead the design on that front, it sounds good. I think slimy is right though about designing cards, and I think a lot will be made clear once we start getting down to business.

I'd also state for the record that IMHO, including Glorify, Rift, and Exalted, we still have up to 2 more slots for named mechanics, so we still have room for some more ideas if we want. I'd also point out that most of our current mechanics are rehashes in some form or another, so maybe looking at something brand new might be worthwhile, whether that's something like the "Depths" mechanic or whatever.

[slimytrout]

The reason I've been hesitant isn't because I think it is a bad idea, but because I think it may be a challenging idea to balance, at least for me. If others want to lead the design on that front, it sounds good.

Yeah, it's definitely tougher to balance than the other mechanics, but I actually don't think it's quite as hard as it looks (at least for limited) since you have control over an extra set of knobs compared to a typical mechanic: you have a) the stats on the auras, b) the cost of the auras, and c) the cost/stats of the card that triggers it. Anyway, I'm happy to be the lead on power level concerns for glorify (again, for limited -- I have no idea how we're thinking about constructed).

I agree that one more mechanic feels helpful, and I think that whatever it is should probably be a) new and b) provide card filtering, something which none of our current mechanics do (we've got a combat mechanic, a curve-smoothing/synergy mechanic, and a sort-of mana sink mechanic, but no filtering), but otherwise there aren't a ton of constraints. To my mind, there are a few possible ways to approach it that might be more effective than just spitballing, and they actually dovetail somewhat nicely:

1) Go back to the flavor/worldbuilding as void suggested and look for details that could be the backbone of a mechanic. This probably needs to happen to some extent anyway to nail down what the flavor is of the mechanics we already have.
2) Draft a list of archetypes for the set and see where we have holes. A lot of our mechanics are fairly flexible in color alignment -- exalted has had multiple cards in every color but red and honestly I think it would work fine in red/white, glorify probably wants to be centered in white but could go out into several different sub-archetypes, and rift doesn't feel that black or red to me but could work with any bant combo -- so there's not an obvious/unique solution to this, but I think it's worth doing.
3) Actually start filling in a design skeleton and see where we're having trouble filling holes.

Thoughts? Ideas? Volunteers?

[Venedrex]

The reason I've been hesitant isn't because I think it is a bad idea, but because I think it may be a challenging idea to balance, at least for me. If others want to lead the design on that front, it sounds good.

Yeah, it's definitely tougher to balance than the other mechanics, but I actually don't think it's quite as hard as it looks (at least for limited) since you have control over an extra set of knobs compared to a typical mechanic: you have a) the stats on the auras, b) the cost of the auras, and c) the cost/stats of the card that triggers it. Anyway, I'm happy to be the lead on power level concerns for glorify (again, for limited -- I have no idea how we're thinking about constructed).

I agree that one more mechanic feels helpful, and I think that whatever it is should probably be a) new and b) provide card filtering, something which none of our current mechanics do (we've got a combat mechanic, a curve-smoothing/synergy mechanic, and a sort-of mana sink mechanic, but no filtering), but otherwise there aren't a ton of constraints. To my mind, there are a few possible ways to approach it that might be more effective than just spitballing, and they actually dovetail somewhat nicely:

1) Go back to the flavor/worldbuilding as void suggested and look for details that could be the backbone of a mechanic. This probably needs to happen to some extent anyway to nail down what the flavor is of the mechanics we already have.
2) Draft a list of archetypes for the set and see where we have holes. A lot of our mechanics are fairly flexible in color alignment -- exalted has had multiple cards in every color but red and honestly I think it would work fine in red/white, glorify probably wants to be centered in white but could go out into several different sub-archetypes, and rift doesn't feel that black or red to me but could work with any bant combo -- so there's not an obvious/unique solution to this, but I think it's worth doing.
3) Actually start filling in a design skeleton and see where we're having trouble filling holes.

Thoughts? Ideas? Volunteers?

Yeah, sorry for the late response, had to go to work. I think going back to the lore TO THE LORE! is a good idea lol. Honestly one of my favorite things about the lore for the Thalakos was their scientific mindset, how they loved to research and experiment. I don't know if that makes sense in the set, but I think it might be neat if we could capture that sense of scientific curiosity in a mechanic. But, I'm not locked in either way, and I'd be open to anything.

I don't really have any concrete ideas. Oh and speaking of the lore, one thing we may want to do is change the name of Glorify to something a little different, just to keep it distinct from exalted. I don't what we'd change it too, or what the lore behind the mechanic is yet but I think that would help keep the mechanics feeling more distinct.

Archetypes for the set is a fun exercise.

IMHO, I think Exalted like you said can be in all five colors, but I kind of like it in Orzhov/Mardu with just a bit in Simic maybe. Mostly just because I think the flavor of Exalted goes really well with the Dauthi, and the Soltari. I think the Elves and the Thalakos are the least interested flavorfully in the concept in general, and mechanically I think Mardu is a pretty good place for the go wide aggro mechanic. I guess my main takeaway is I think the Orzhov archetype being Exalted would be *chefs kiss* as far as flavor is concerned, assuming the Dauthi are primarily found in Orzhov colors.

Glorify like you said I could see being in all five colors, but maybe centric white.

Rift I think does make sense in Bant, because Convoke was Green White and this is convoke for enchantments, so Green White makes sense. We could also change the name to something like Attune or whatever we want to flavor it to match the colors it ends up in. Especially since the color pairs that usually have the most enchantments are in Bant colors, like in Theros where GW UG and UW have the most enchantments.

[Venedrex]

OK, after some thought, I have some more ideas.

First off, I have a question for slimytrout, and I want to preface by saying I totally get it if it's a dumb question, but that's never stopped me before. Do you think there would be any value in extending Glorify include equipment? I completely understand if that would be weird/unnesseccary because this is an enchantment focused set, and I know equipment don't have the same exact problems as auras but I figured I get your opinion on the idea, mostly for flavor.

No big deal if it doesn't make sense. I guess I was just thinking maybe we could give the equipment the same subtype as the auras, and then have the text become, (Choose a Favor card in your graveyard or outside the game. You may cast it for its Glory cost. If you do, attach it to this creature.)? But, again, might be a silly idea on my part so feel free to disregard.

I was thinking about the flavor for glorify, and I was wondering, what do you think about flavoring it as a type of mystical construction by the creature. Silverskeleton had suggested a name earlier in the thread for a mechanic, and maybe it could fit here?

Soulforge. I guess the thought being that the creature is using magic to tailor make an aura that is exactly what they need for the situation. Lemme know what you think.

[slimytrout]

The biggest (and probably fatal) problem with that idea is that Enchantments and Artifacts can't share a subtype, so there would need to be a second subtype for equipment and I just don't think it would be worth the extra text.

Soulforge is okay, but the issue is that you need at least two different words to make the mechanic work, in the same way as lesson/learn -- one keyword action and one subtype.