temporary storage: Recent Activity
| temporary storage: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics | Cult World references | Aerial vs. Aquatic mechanical ideas | Clan Lore and Individuals | Katonah's Plane Tests & Details |
Recent updates to temporary storage: (Generated at 2025-09-05 19:29:51)
No, there is no soil or rock formations clumped together like the Zendikar lands. I really hated Zendikar's floating rocks and would be highly unlikely to ever invoke their image again. The aerial world's closest comparison I could think of would be to a gas giant planet.
Wouldn't the basic lands in an entirely aerial world just look like on Zendikar and Drifting Meadow?
Both aerial and aquatic were inspired by use of the snow supertype and are intended for use sky and water worlds respectively. The supertype should only come up in planes where the supertype would have mechanical relevance, i.e. not many. This intention would be limited by your suggestion, although I do like the batch grouping for other, unrelated scenarios. Examples such as the following are why the batch grouping doesn't work in place of the supertypes (forgive the text's appearance, I never learned proper formatting breaks): Red Tide
- Aquatic Creature- Germ(? may need to introduce new creature type)- When ~ ETBs other aquatic creatures get -1/-2 UEOT. 0/3. Sea Snake 
Aquatic Creature- Snake- Deathtouch, Whenever you cast an aquatic spell, Sea Snake gains hexproof until the end of the turn. 1/2.
Aerial was an even bigger issue, since the world itself imposes the problem of suggesting all creatures have flying. I think we would all agree just giving the flying mechanic to every creature is colorbreaking and bad for the game. The next thoughht is that every creature is airborne to a degree, so art should depict the general airborne movement of the things living on the plane. Unique, flavorful, and playable mechanics have been the tricky parts of creating a basis on which to design cards for those worlds.
As I've heard basic snow lands were a mistake, I would not include the supertype for the basic lands. Admittedly, the basic land types don't even make sense in a sky-only world (water world I think the basic land types would be easy enough to depict though). This complicates things as it forces supertype to be directly associated with either relevant mechanics or the supertype in my opinion. I have issues with some snow creatures for that reason ( why is Frostweb Spider a snow creature beyond tossing "Frost" in its name?). .
The type line is actually more pressed for space than the text box.
How many subtypes do you think your "legendary flying creature" is going to have? :)
And also has the advantage of making it compatible outside of set.
Still; I personally like the idea of moving vanilla keywords like flying to the supertype. Sometimes you gotta try stuff out to see if it can work.
The whole concept of aerial is weird.
Similar to aquatic that I've seen on Vanseeli Guard the supertype is unfortunately not backwards compatible and going forward sets you up with the tribal problem: Do you want to add the (super-/card) type to all new appropriate cards in the future?
I've explored why this is a problem with a small subset of aquatic (sea monsters) on Commune with the Depths and undead on Commune with the Dead. A batch word over a supertype may solve issues with backward and forward compatibility, but it can be hard to pick the correct characteristics anyway.
A weird issue with aerial that aquatic doesn't even have is that we already have a way to check whether a creature is usually "aerial" and that's the keyword flying.
I think an ability word for a spell ability on a permanent that still needs reminder text and looks entirely at a supertype specifically introduced just in this set is... a lot of design capital put into a mechanic that is just "this card wants to be played with other cards that are %%%". You could easily choose something like flying for %%% instead and save a lot of complexity.
I already made this mechanic. This is recycled trash
See Glitterwing Admonisher.
Eh; intent seems pretty clear. Kill an attacking enemy creature, draw a card if it was a legend; red-loot if not.
Is that a sensible effect for a 2-cost artifact? Maybe?
That's two different triggered abilities.
The second contains an "instead" but doesn't make clear what to replace. The death event? Any part of the top ability? Which one? Mana payment? Rumaging? Discard?
Wouldn't it be so much easier to add "nonlegendary" to the top ability and make an entirely separate ability for legendaries if you already insist on two triggered abilities?
That feels like it's moved too far into the "Why even bother" territory for a mechanic.
I think I'd like to see a creature with "It costs (some) less to enchant ~" though.
I could make this just auras. I think that's a little harder to abuse.
Huh. Interesting idea. "Equip
" unfortunately does exist and seems like a bit too easy a combo, though.
See Searing Sunlight. Does not work with linked card, but mechanic concept for Big Mana world where you aura and equip up for mana.
Well yes; but it's not got that link right now. Right now you can happily use this to kill a creature and randomly disenchant something else completely unrelated.
I get the intended link; but maybe it needs to be more explicit?
I yhink debuffing a creature so that it can be killed by damage is a sensical link. Token is vaguely in the same concept (in the scenario where you're targeting an attacking creature and need the extra damage the token could assign as a blocker), but artifact or enchantment destruction is I think tied closer. I could make the intention clearer by narrowing versatility by limiting to aura or equipment destruction. Am I wrong that there isn't a way to word the card so that the effects go off without timing issues though? This I genuinely do not know the answer to. I mean, with a nerf to only auras and equipment nerf the card woulg probably still be limited playable. Vitenka's suggestion would be the simplest implementation and closer to what I originally envisioned.
Or more explicitly link them - make it that you destroy all of the artifacts/enchantments attached to the target.
My point is that these two effects while they can work together are not the best choice for a kicker-variant since often you might want either and none is a clear extension of the other and the timing issues just compound that effect.
So I actually suggest a functionally different card. If it has to be a kicker-like effect, then something like life gain or token creation in the secondary slot seems better.
Yeah, a rewrite could probably happed. I just didn't know what the text should like, so I guessed and guessed incorrectly.
Isn't that the space that ended up being "exert"?
Is "Kicker - Tap an untapped creature you control" a mechanic worth receiving its own keyword (considering you use it on multiple cards)?
I'm reminded of conspire and my own "Feats". If you want the damage to be dealt after the Disenchant, why not just write it second? That's easier to process.
Certainly has its purpose in removing a pesky Equipment that increases toughness past the 4 damage range. It's really weird to have to wait for a valid target before you can get rid of an annoying artifact.
The design has issues, and I don't think it's the best use of the kicker-like mechanic. I'd rather have this as a "Choose one" or "Choose one or both" modal spell - maybe entwine-like.
I was on my phone (I find mobile devices generally inconvenient for most websites) and didn't look up ransom's reminder text. At the time, the concept seemed fine, but looking at the card, ransom just doesn't feel black (when targetting creatures on the battlefield) mechanically.