I do think "cannot attack or block" sacrifices some flavor for playability and clarity.

Making them expensive and always on is not fun. Maybe they could be like Westvale Abbey where you have to sac a bunch of clerics of the right color to turn them on.

Come to think of it, making an offering to the god of something they'd want (Via "Additional cost to cast" or restrictions on casting) would actually be pretty godly.

I mean, offering is already a mechanic and one I'm on board with coming back.

Think you're in the minority there.

Eh, I'm used to it. I tend to like the quirkier mechanics over the "popular" ones anyways.
Same with creature types.

I don't think offering would make sense on Amonkhet. The Gods aren't particularly tied to their respective races in the flavor.

True, and I'm mostly just playing devil's advocate on this, but there's nothing that directly locks in what you have to offer. You could expand it to a color or just be as generic as creature.

I wouldn't say there's nothing, since the rules explicitly define it as based on subtypes, but that could be tweaked if they really wanted to.

In a manner similar to champion, yes.

I think you missed a critical paragraph at the beginning of the article where Maro explained that they also were very aware that they were effectively defining for all time what it means (mechanically) to be a God in Magic. (His whole "two points make a line" thing.) If the first two sets of Gods are both enchantment creatures, you are effectively saying "Gods just are enchantment creatures: that's how they work and that's what they do," and it will be really hard to wrench away from that established pattern in future designs when maybe that really does make no sense or actively fights against some other element of the design.

Fair, but this is also the area of "God design" where I think they feel they need the most flexibility and so they tried to see if they could push this element as far away from Theros as possible. If a God is supposed to be a creature only sometimes, then the rest of the time it needs to be, well, a land, an artifact, or an enchantment and those aren't always going to fit.

The Theros gods had both because they were enchantment creatures and Design/Development were very careful to always (try to) justify both cards types on every card in that block. Absent that critical element, there's no reason for these to do the same thing. Other than "well Gods should just do that because" which is a very bad reason.

What were they then? He laid out a fairly detailed mechanical analysis of what the Theros Gods had and they tried rejiggering them for this to see what they can change and what they can't. That's, like, the exact opposite of sloppy.

I don't know if this the best they think they can do, but it was definitely something very different which is exactly what they should have tried. We'll play with them and decide if they feel successful and then future God designs will take that into account.

I'm gonna skip the rest because I think this is the crux of the argument. are they very different? like, really, in the grand scheme of things, with all the possible designs that could capture the flavor of a God, are the Amonkhet ones really more more than a stone's throw from the Theros ones?

I think the statement you quoted is in agreement with you that they aren't, what with the "should have tried."

That aside, I feel like the Pyramids are sort of a dud. It feels like a flavor miss that you build them by doing beneficial actions (in the context of the game, they are weak and potentially sub-optimal plays, but you're still using them for "good" things.)

No, razorbone had the right of it. I do think that the Amonkhet Gods are significantly different from the Theros Gods. The lack of an additional card type is a hugely significant mechanical difference precisely because of the implications for interactions. Maybe they aren't as different as they should be, but different enough that I think they will play differently, which is the only difference that matters.

I'm not at all sure that I like them, though. Boy was that star-studded frame and Nyx-field effect gorgeous.

Can I say that the discussion of the mechanic makes me want to see something like "Artifact Offering"

then oh boy do I have a forum recommendation for you

For those keeping track of the Vanilla Mythic:


That would most likely make it in Ixalan in the fall because we were still doing a "file watch" on it all the way through when that set went to print.

Sometime in the next 3-4 years, we will see another Lorwyn-Shadowmoor type year, with 4 consecutive sets set on the same plane, and a major mechanical shift between the 2nd and 3rd set.

I'm hoping you're right and that it's a Return to Dominaria after Ixalan, for the 30th.

25th?

Some times I can't count.