If I tweaked the Artifacts (say, by removing three commons and adding three uncommons), I'd have to tweak the Lands too (by turning the common cycle into an uncommon cycle). I really like the lands the way they are, so I don't think that change would be worth it.

I think the Set Map is as good as I'm able to get it.

Scars had 25 artifacts with 'color identity' though - while technically colorless artifacts, they were cards that required or provided a specific color of mana, so really had to be in a deck of that color to be put to proper use. From a design perspective, I imagine these were more thought of as cards in their respective color sets rather than the color-independent fill that traditional artifacts were. Just like the Theros gods' weapons (Spear of Heliod et al) - though those were actually genuinely colored artifacts.

This also calls to mind that we should be clear exactly what the 'artifact' slots on the setmap mean. Is that more properly 'colorless nonland'? Because people have been designing colored artifacts into their specifically-colored-slot card designs already. If the set were to for some bizarro reason have colorless nonland nonartifacts (All is Dust, Karn Liberated) I'd think they should slot here while colored artifacts (and maybe even colorless artifacts that have a specific colored skew, unless we're planning that as a cycle) should be in their respective colors on the map.

Alright, given what thatmarkguy just said, here's my plan:

1) Turn the Artifacts, Multicolor, and Lands thread into the Colorless thread (since we haven't talked about Multicolor or Lands in there yet).
2) Turn the Cycles thread into the Land thread (since Lands all we've talked about in there so far).
3) Make a Multicolor thread.

That way everyone can be on the same page.

Does this sound like a good plan to everyone? If so, I'll go forward with it.

Yes.
I doubt we'll have other colorless permanents, but it's good thinking of that.

New Rule: If you find a reprint that fits a criterion perfectly, you may have that reprint be your submission.

Sounds good.

Idea: Threshold for card types.

[If/As long as] you have mastery, [Effect]. (You have mastery as long as you control an artifact, a creature, an enchantment, and a land.)

Mastery—[Ability] (Activate this ability only if you control an artifact, a creature, an enchantment, and a land.)

Swordsman Trainee –
Creature – Human Soldier (C)
As long as you have mastery, Swordsman Trainee gets +1/+1 and has first strike.
1/1

Interpret the Ancient Scrolls –
Instant (U)
Draw a card. If you have mastery, draw two cards instead.

Mox Amber –
Artifact (M)
Mastery—: Add one mana of any color to your mana pool.

Mastery's a neat idea. It helps tie the set together instead of it being the "everything matters" set. It does leave out instant/sorceries, but I don't see a problem there. I would probably cut lands from the ability too. Mentioning them helps reinforce the flavour, but is rarely relevant. When do you not have lands?

I like it. I would like something for instants and sorceries.

One thing I thought of for instants...
As long as you control another spell, this costs X less.
or
This costs X less for each other spell you control.
I'd call it: Unload.

Sorry I swapped to my laptop lol...

One thing I've been thinkin about, and I'll implement it with my lands. Is group the Wedges and Arcs similarly to how they grouped two color pairs in RTR.

I'd suggest...
WUB - Frostwynd (This one is a must)
WBR - Illpyre (This could be Grixis, but I like this better)
URG - Maraka (or Vulpo)
GRW - Vulpo (or Maraka)
GUB - Ji

==xx==

This fits my vision of these lands (conceptual, not the cards) a lot better than the others, and it mixes.
Note: This is a concept of the division.
I wanted bot Frostwynd and Illpyre to have no green (because they are the extremes, things have more difficulty growing), and at that I decided that they should lack the other's main theme (frostwynd lacks red, illpyre lacks blue). That's not saying thsoe colors don't exist in those areas, just that the other three colors thrive (and for the land cards, it provides a solid three color option).

Maraka I did last because It could be RGW, but so couldn't Vulpo, and I liked it for Vulpo more. Vulpo is on the Illpyre edge of the plane. The opposite, Ji is on the Frostwynd edge of the plane. The important part, is that people live in these areas because of, or maybe they cause, growth in these areas. GUB really fits my vision of Ji, and GRW is a perfect fit for Vulpo.

Maraka got the last trio with URG. This could exemplify an explosive growth pattern due to having to deal with (potential) extreme weather changes and/or conditions. And though it's not a "paradise" it is by far the most vegetated of the lands.

What do you guys think?

I'm willing to go more in-depth, but I figured I'd get a general concensus first.

Isn't that just Affinity for spells though?

How about Spellcraft—Whenever you cast an instant or sorcery spell, [Effect]? Like Young Pyromancer. Doesn't necessarily need to be keyworded, but it would have good synergy with Rebound (which we still need to decide if we're bringing back or not).

But it doesn't just have to be different cost.
Think of the instant that gives +2/+2 or +4/+4 when you cast it at "sorcery" speed. We could something similar but with spells instead of straight up timing.
For example:
Name deals 1 damage to target player for each spell you control.
or
Counter target spell unless its controller pays for each spell you control.

It'll encourage some creative wording from us and decision making from players.

How often do you have more than 2 spells on the stack though? I'm not sure the ways to encourage having more are healthy. Maybe count spells for all players? Or even spells cast this turn/total in the graveyard?

Spellcraft - Some effect for each spell cast before it this turn.

This way it actually likes permanents and sorceries too, and rewards players for playing the game.

So what are the current verdicts on the set as a whole? Trying to catch up on everything and it's rather difficult with all this stuff scattered throughout all the threads. Correct anything I have wrong here.

: Cares about artifacts?; Frostwynd?

: Cares about sorceries; Illpyre (in the worst parts of the desert farthest from Frostwynd)

: Cares about instants; Frostwynd (in the worst parts of the tundra farthest from Illpyre)

: Cares about enchantments; Illpyre, Frostwynd (along the border?)

: Cares about creatures; Illpyre, Frostwynd (along the border where there's vegetation to some extent, cards likely dealing with surviving the worst of both sides)

Every color will be represented to some extent on both sides of the plane (not just Illpyre or just Frostwynd). There'll also be a lot of overlap between the card types each color cares about (for example, blue and probably white will also care about artifacts, not just black), though I don't think there's consensus on the exact distribution.

Seems too narrow, especially for limited. Threshold worked because every deck would eventually get threshold. This doesn't.

Which brings me to a larger problem with the set as a whole. Not all card types are created equal. Every deck plays lands, pretty much every deck plays creatures, most decks don't play any artifact or enchantments, and instants and sorceries can't be counted on the battlefield the way the other card types can. Card types matter was a cool idea, but I don't know if it can really work, especially if you try to squeeze in support for all the card types at once, instead of focusing on one type the way Zendikar, Mirrodin, and Theros did.

So what you're saying is there is a fundamental problem with magic and it was become a creature game? So we should remedy this by encouraging combo. Also we can use token instants and sorceries.

I think a majority of the set shouldn't encourage people to go for every card type at once. A couple "domain"-like cards (like from the mastery proposal) at higher rarities is fine, but I don't think it's interesting at all as a major theme--players play with a mix of card types in every environment, so in the end the "card types matter" theme ends up just being "make sure you have a couple artifacts and enchantments." I think the far more interesting and unique direction to take is allowing/encouraging players to focus on one or two card types.

Think about Lorwyn--it doesn't achieve the tribal (i.e. "creature type matters") theme by encouraging people to use a mix of every kind of creature, it does it by dividing the creature types into a few overlapping subsets with unique identities and playstyles. It also doesn't do it by being solely a "treefolk matter" set--obviously it's different when our factions aren't just different kinds of creatures, but I think a pluralistic theme is perfectly viable.

Also keep in mind that a deck doesn't need to consist entirely of a single card type for that card type to "matter," and that not being focused on creatures doesn't mean creatures can't make an appearance. There are artifact creatures, (probably) enchantment creatures, tokens, and permanents that turn into creatures even if they aren't generally of that type. There are supporting creatures like Frostblight Scavenger and many more to come. There can be creatures that are meant for combat, but still depend on other card types, like Kiln Fiend or whatever. Or someone could draft a strong "instants matter" deck with removal and counterspells and recursion and just run a couple unrelated creatures for win conditions. I count all of those as victories for the set theme.

Anyway, from my perspective, we're not looking for a keyword that tells everyone to play every card type. And making a separate keyword for each of five or six card types is probably ridiculous. I think our best bet is something parametric like kinship that could go with a number of different card types.

Illpyre Zealot
Creature - Human Cleric (C)
Enchantment tribute (You may cast an enchantment spell by sacrificing this and paying the difference in mana costs between that card and this one.)
2/1

Like a reverse offering. I'm pretty sure this is too good, or at least too swingy.

So, this thread is long and I haven't read the entirety of it, but the impression I'm getting is like a x versus y feel. So, if that is a general idea, i feel like split cards are interesting. I think currently split cards are only instant/instant, sorcery/sorcery so you could mix them up or even do it where one side is an instant and one side is an enchantment kinda thing. Not sure how this relates to any ideas currently.

Was thinking something like "flip" enchantments and artifacts (although they had them) but they could conditionally flip between enchantments and artifacts to show each side of the world, perhaps.