Fair enough.

Anyway, this round will end basically when I feel like it, but I'm thinking Tuesday at noon.

Also, just a note: I've sent a PM to GobO_Slobad asking him to make a subforum for Starstill so that it doesn't drown out the rest of the YMtC forums. Just in case anyone's annoyed by how many threads I've started for this.

As a mechanic how about this?

Animate (As long as this permanent has a +1/+1 counter on it, it is a 0/0 Artifact Creature in addition to its other types.)

I think people would use artifacts to help extract things from the "core" of the respective sides, and they got creative and are able to make anything do their bidding.
It could fit, and it could be fun.

Drop the artifact bit and I'd support it.
I do think this feels more like a -1/-1 counter set than a +1/+1 counter set though.

I like it! Much more flavorful than mine, and a perfect fit for Frostwynd. I'm thinking maybe a white common enchantment with Animate that enters the battlefield with a +1/+1 counter? Somehow that seems both more flavorful and less wonky than simply an Artifact Enchantment Creature.

It makes me think: I know Wizards does it so that +1/+1 counters and -1/-1 counters never get mixed in the same set, but maybe we could have it so that Frostwynd uses +1/+1 counters and Illypre uses -1/-1 counters?

I agree with story, though; if I had to pick between +1/+1 counters and -1/-1 counters for this set, I would definitely have to go with -1/-1 counters.

So with animate, -1/-1 really contradicts it. Not impossible, but I personally like mixing counters.

I wouldn't specify them to one side of the other, but make it so that some people see this 'artifice' as the cause of starstills ... stillness, and want all of it removed, while others are using it to explore the heart of the wasteland/tundra.

Plus it can inspire some interesting combat tricks.

I've noticed that all the creatures everyone's making are Humans. What other tribes would fit in this set?

Also, does anyone have any suggestions for the Set Map I made? I ultimately decided on 28 Artifacts and 18 Lands. Is that enough Artifacts? Too many Lands?
I also stuck in 10 Multicolor Rares because I figured that we might like to have those slots for a nifty cycle, but the more I think about it, the more I realize it might not have been necessary. What do people think?

I think 18 lands might be too much. Usually there are about ten lands, unless there is a cycle (sometimes even including a cycle).
i think 10 lands, plus whatever random ideas get tack on for a range of 10 to 15 lands. I tend to plan on twelve in sets I design.

I was wondering about a proposed mechanic, not exactly keyworded, but:

Tap target permanent. That permanent can't untap until [trigger].

Introducing "can't" instead of the usual doesn't untap during its controllers untap step.
the old way can be worked around...
Can't means that that permanent isn't untapping for anything until your card's trigger allows it.

At common it would be for a turn, like frost breath or those typical tapdown guys.
At uncommon it could be a combat trick.
At rare and higher it could be a stall tactic, or otherwise crippling.

If so, I would suggest it for Frostwynd.

Hmm, I really like parts of this. It would require a fairly major +1/+1 counter theme to work, and everything being 0/0 make it hard to scale the power level. Making the P/T = cmc could add more veriety, but it might be complicated when the actual P/T is always the cmc + some number of counters. Could we do some new type of counter that's only used for turning things into creatures? That or maybe a universal trigger that would turn everything with the keyword on it into a creature?

When I first designed it, it is designed to provide the following scenarios:
1) You could animate typically inanimate objects. Given their "new" life, they would be a bit unsteady/unsure of what to do.
2) You could animate typically animate objects. This is a mechanical hack to control certain scenarios. This would probably only be used in a block as the last set gimmick.

For example:
First scenario...

Creeping Coastline --
Land

Animate
Tap for U

If this gets a +1/+1 counter it becomes an 1/1 Artifact Creature Land.
==xx==
Second scenario

NAME 2gg
Creature - Beast

Animate
Whenever this becomes the target of a spell or ability, put a +1/+1 counter on it.

4/4

If this gets targeted by a spell, it becomes a 1/1 artifact creature, but it gets bigger and bigger form there. animate is used as a controlling device in this scenario
==xx==

I'm not against having it change, but those were my thoughts behind the mechanic.

I'm really excited how active this is.
As a partial hindsight, we should really try to nail down at least base mechanics asap as that will help with a lot of these design threads. Right now everyone is posting some kind of new mechanic, and from a voter's perspective, I might like the card, but not the mechanic it has.
I know the threads are one way to get to the mechanics, I just think we should try and scrape them together first, even if they'll change partway through.

I don't really like the mechanic, but if we are to include it, I would probably make it more general:
Vitality (~ is a 0/0 creature in addition to it's other types as long as it has a +1/+1 counter on it.)

I think it's important to have bridges between the types, so artifact creatures, enchantment creatures, manlands and such are important. It's a bit annoying that Living Weapon has such flavor ties to Phyrexia. Cards that change types are also cool, like the proposed mechanic. A token subtheme makes instant/sorcery support less of a chore as well.

Come to think of it, this set is a pretty good fit for rituals (Mown lingo for Enchantments with Vanishing as a subtype)

Fleeting (Whenever you cast an instant spell, you may return this permanent to its owner's hand.)

I wouldn't want to keyword that. I woldn't mind having that as a mechanic on cards, but I feel iffy having it keyworded.

@Parad: If you are planning on three land cycles (one at each rarity), I think 18 is fine. But otherwise, you should remove at least 5.

In a type-matters set, I think I like that ability in a 'permanent runs away if another permanent of this type enters the battlefield'.

Fleeting (Whenever a permanent that shares a type with this permanent enters the battlefield, return this permanent to its owner's hand)

Now, whether this is exploitable as an advantage or purely a disadvantage is a question of design. On a vanilla creature, probably usually a disadvantage. On something with an ETB ability or LTB ability? Could be used quite advantageously.

That's why it should probably be a "may"

Would you guys want to do similar to a Domain; but for card types?

no

What about a win-con based on card types.
It can't be straight up card-types unless... I have an idea but I want to wait for a contest for it first.

I do.