Homelands Restored: Recent Activity
| Homelands Restored: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Skeleton |
Recent updates to Homelands Restored: (Generated at 2025-08-07 17:42:02)
| Homelands Restored: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Skeleton |
Recent updates to Homelands Restored: (Generated at 2025-08-07 17:42:02)
Will 1 card in 15 be enough?
If so, then that sounds like a great solution.
The more I think of this, the more I think I like the time-shifted option best. It's intrusive. But there's also a sense of exploration, which is nice. And it's limited to exactly one card in fifteen, so the people who don't like it don't have to worry about seeing too much of it... three packs will only contain 3 cards. Plus the bonus cards I was already planning on putting in (Planeswalkers, Promo cards and timeshifted from Timespiral) would naturally go in this space.
I would like to hear other people's opinions, though. This idea is far from set in stone.
I've been thinking about this over the weekend. There seems to be three 'best' ways to approach this.
1.) Add a core set. Revised makes the most sense, I guess, since that provides the least overlap, and would still be available when the three sets were out.
The good: Creates a solid anchor for a draft environment. Technically, this would be a four pack draft... but packs during this time contained fewer cards (12 per pack, if I'm remembering correctly.) One core, and three boosters of 12 cards each should be just about right, and would best represent the feeling of playing during this time period.
The Bad: 12 card packs means less decision making in each pack, and fewer deck archtypes (since it would be harder to horde cards like Tome Scour, or attain key cards like Dampen Thought.) I also didn't want to touch the core set, since that seems wrong somehow. Especially since I'm going to need to drop the power of a number of cards... in Homelands Restored, there are few cards I need to drop in power level. Revised contains cards like Dark Ritual, Winter Orb, Meekstone and the dual lands, just to name a number of cards off the top of my head. Making those cards 'worse' makes it feel like I'm defeating the purpose of updating older sets.
2.) Adding a 'time-shifted' slot. Instead of adding Revised to the lineup, I could instead bulk up each set with an extra 40-60 cards that operate like rares. The 'time-shifted' slot could be different for each set, but could also just be shared among all sets. I should stress that these would mostly be new cards, not reprints (they aren't really time-shifted. they're just using that space.)
The Good: This bulks up the numbers to normal expansion level. And while it may not provide the same numbers as a large set and two expansions, three expansions is the rough equivalent of a large and a small set, which will become the norm in short order. Also, the 'time-shifted' slot can do an excellent job patching the holes of the set. For example, many cards care about color and land type, but few cards change color or land type. A swathe of cards in the time-shifted slot could support a whole mechanic. Other cards, like Leeches, don't make any sense in Homelands (which includes no poison.) Timeshifted can help that.
The Bad: These cards don't come from any of the sets, so they don't feel like belong sitting next to their counterparts. It's nice that they get their own expansion symbol to separate them, and there will only ever be one per pack. But I can understand why a card based on Niveous Wisps doesn't belong in Homelands Restored.
3.) Ignore the problem; it isn't one worth solving. The sets are still draftable, but with fewer cards.
The Good: Dude1818 threw me when he mentioned the Coldsnap conundrum. But this isn't that. No one is suggesting we draft Homelands, Homelands, Homelands. All three sets together would result in over 350 cards total. That's a lot closer to drafting 3 packs of a large set, like Rise of the Eldrazi. (It should probably also be noted that this is the simplest option. At the very least, it's the easiest option to focus on, so I can get back to work making cards.)
The Bad: It might be doable and fun, but public perception might say it isn't, and public perception has a tendency to trump actual play. Also, the core set isn't normally split into 115 card pools and drafted one pack at a time. While players might see the same number of cards, they will end up seeing them in a restrictive order, which could 'solve' the draft environment much faster.
Hmm... these are ideas, and good ones. Though, I would like to make sure Homelands Restored maintains a separate identity from Fallen Empires Restored...
To be honest, now I almost have too many thoughts floating in my head. One is the idea of hybrid sets... something I always wanted to work on... where packs were constructed from a side A half and side B half (think Nerds. Hold it... I don't think you get Willy Wonka candy in the UK. Google Nerds, then think about them?) Originally, I thought of making 5 half sets, with a potential 10 different combinations. But I'm going off on a tangent here. The idea here is to be comfortable with the sets being half a normal set, and encourage people to slap two 'half' sets into one booster. But that idea sounds better in my head, I'm sure, than in practice. I shouldn't try to convince anyone of how to play. It should be obvious based on the how the sets are constructed. Still a good idea; just not for this set.
There is, of course, the possibility of linking up these three sets with Legends, which has the numbers for a large set. But, Legends/Antiquities/Arabian Nights seems too obvious a second problem to work after this one... if I could somehow make the numbers work here...
Large set, small set, large set, small set. The three sets together are like a large set alone. I could keep the three sets as separate entities, and just copy and paste all the cards into one large set afterwards for purposes of drafting. It's an annoying compromise, though.
Something I didn't happen to mention was the possibility of reigning back cards printed in Timespiral for the Restored series. You know, like adding Sarpadian Empires, Vol. VII and Thelon of Havenwood. I didn't mention it here because I don't think anything was 'timeshifted' from Homelands, because that wouldn't make sense story-wise. There are references, of course, like Opal Guardian, but that would just create overlap.
I ran out of time tonight, and need to go home, but I'll be thinking about this. There's a most reasonable solution in all this, but I'm sure it will take time for me to begrudgingly accept it.
Ooh! One last idea. I could present this set as intended for league play. That way, players could play in a similar fashion to the way the original game was played, with no real idea of what all the cards do, and allow tradesies. It would also solve the upcoming ante card problem... just play for ante. I really want to see these drafted, though. Solving the 'how do I draft this' problem by saying 'You Don't--exclamation mark, smiley face' doesn't really solve the problem, it just sloppily tries to mask it.
You've been talking about doing The Dark Restored and Fallen Empires Restored. The Dark has 119 cards and FE has only 102 not counting alt-art commons. Those are both too small for regular small sets too. The thought occurs that you could combine this problem on one hand, with the problem on the other hand that Wizards are now doing 2-set block not 3-set, and take on a slightly more ambitious project:
Restore all three sets, and redistribute the cards from among them to make two sets, each of about 160 cards.
(The idea of adding a few extra vanillas using spare art and flavour text makes quite a bit of sense too, especially if the commons are a bit complex for common. But you certainly wouldn't want to do 40 per set. 10 per set might be more reasonable.)
It depends on the goal of the set. If you want to fix Homelands for Constructed play, I'd say go for the adjusted 115+2 card set. The distribution doesn't really matter anyway. On the other hand, if you want to play Limited, you definitely need to bump up the number of cards, else you'll have the Coldsnap problem but worse. Even then, 165 isn't enough for a stand-alone Limited environment.
Alright, looking at the skeleton, I'm seeing a few problems. Obviously, Homelands was made during a time when Wizards just put enough cards on a sheet and called it a day, so the numbers won't align perfectly. But we're shooting for an ideal small set as much as we can, which means that we should compare Homelands to Journey Into Nyx.
The first problem is that Homelands doesn't have enough cards to be an official small set. 115 cards to JiN's 165. I'm sure there were at least 20 commons printed with alternative art in Homelands, and normally that would bulk up the numbers, but I'm not playing that game. I think it would be cool to see a set play with that theme again, but modern sets don't do that.
Here's a commonality breakdown:
Homelands
Common - 46
Uncommon - 23
Rares - 42
Journey into Nyx
Common - 60
Uncommon - 60
Rare - 35
Mythic Rare - 10
That's after rooting out all the reprints from different commonalities. JiN had two (Reprisal was a common in Masters, and Riddle of Lightning is a common from Future Sight.) Homelands had something like forty. Crazy stuff.
So here's some good news. I keep complaining that a number of commons are too complex for common, and a number of rares are too dumb for rare. Looks like we have a large glut of uncommons to fill, though.
The more challenging news is what to do with the sheer lack of cards in Homelands compared to Journey Into Nyx. Right now, the only answer I can think of is 'deal with it'. I mean, I can't just go about adding cards. I was thinking about adding Serra and Feroz as a shared Planeswalker to the set (like Tibor and Lumia), both as a one shot gift from the designer/developer, and because most modern sets have at least one Planeswalker in the block somewhere. I could also throw in the promo cards from this time period, but that's only 4 cards, and by rights, I should split them among sets... so one more card. A fifty card gap is a lot of cards.
Ah, well, stop thinking about the thing I currently can't control. If I was to break the set down on Journey's percentages, I'd end up with:
Common - 41
Uncommon - 41
Rare - 25
Mythic - 8
Not including promo card and planeswalker. I almost want to make extra vanilla creatures using spare Homelands artwork and flavor text, but I guess that's a bad idea, too. Most player would never guess I did that to bulk up the numbers of the set. It would just look weird.
That's a good point. I don't think it needs to be moved, since it's still a creature that kills you by your not being smart enough to get out of the maze in time (in theory.) But if I need to switch a card into black, this makes a good candidate. Or if a black common looks like it would be a good flavor match for blue, I could make a switcheroo there.
I'm starting to realize that I should build a skeleton. Not to figure out the holes and fill them, but to document all the potential swaps I can make. It's going to be much more difficult if this info isn't all in one place...
Yes, it's very solid. Only question is... from the art, name, and mechanic, this looks a lot more like a black card than a blue one...
There's no real reason to wait until the end of your turn and forget to pitch the Maze you attacked with. Likewise, there isn't a real flavor justification for exile. If you want to Disentomb Dark Maze, I don't see why shouldn't be able to.
I suppose it could get a boost in power, but Dark Maze is a defensive card, and I don't want to reward them. Otherwise, I always liked Dark Maze. It does a simple job well.
I really don't think there's anything wrong with having something technically-alive be an enchantment. I'm sure there have been enchantments with names that are the name of a creature before. Elephant Guide / Griffin Guide are one example; Root Maze, perhaps, or Gutter Grime or Lurking Predators.
Clockwork coral?
Hey, check out Afiya Grove! I haven't seen that card in ages!
I didn't change to creature because of the +1/+1 counters, though. It's just a happy accident. Alternatively, I suppose I could change the name, like with Clockwork Gnomes and Aliban's Tower to match the card.
I guess if I want this to be a common, I need to remove the 'sacrifice an Island' part anyway. It's just an extra piece... it doesn't make it a better all around card. Doing that, this should be fine at common, and accidentally solve the Fling issue that no longer exists.
Whether this should be a creature or an enchantment, though... hmm... Coral Reefs are alive. Creatures pop at common more than enchantments do. But there's nothing wrong with putting an enchantment that interacts with your creatures at common, and the name could always be changed. Hmm... enchantment is probably the path of least resistance. It's really hard trying to stop myself from being clever when I do this, you know?
There is precedent for noncreatures having +1/+1 counters - Llanowar Reborn and Afiya Grove, and sortof Raging Ravine - so you might be able to eliminate four of your bullets plus your Fling worries by keeping this as an enchantment, in the mould of Afiya Grove.
What a crazy mess of changes, huh? Coral Reef needs a lot of help... there's a good top-down idea in there, but it's buried underneath a card that's so bad, that few people take the time to figure that flavor out.
Anyhow, I stole a bit of Vigean Hydropon tech to give this card the correct type (Coral Reefs are alive. But they aren't going to block much, being under the water and all.) I was going to remove the 'only blue creatures can get the counters' restriction, but then I realized that the blue creatures fetch the counters because they can swim.
I don't make these cards on the same computer that I put these cards online (Chromebook doesn't run MTGMaker. Or anything else for that matter.) so I have a bunch of changes that need to be made. Specifically:
Also, this is probably an uncommon. I'll shuffle this in the proper place when all the cards appear.
Oh, and as another note, I restricted the sacrifice an Island to just one counter. Partly because one +1/+1 counter is better than two +0/+1 counters, and partly because... um... this card can get bonkers with a Fling. Twice the counters would just be silly.
I think it's better to change the Clockwork Gnomes' name than to give them a bunch of extra abilities. I think two uncommons or one-unc-and-one-rare are both fine. If you want one of these at common then I think you probably need to bin the rewinding ability. And I agree intimidate on an artifact creature is weird at common.
I also think Vitenka's take on it is perfectly reasonable. Just wanted to provide another possible option. In the end just taking something away might be a better way of simplifying things than making a fuss of it.
I already Tweaked Aliban's Tower to Aliban's Power and An-Havva Inn to An-Havva Hospitality (You know... because they should have names that remind you that they're instants.) So I don't see why these guys can't be "Workshop Gnomes" or something or other.
I bumped the Horse up because I didn't think an artifact creature with intimidate really belonged in common... at least not right now, and not without there just being a vanilla intimidator first. I could be wrong about that, though.
I'm unsure about moving the Gnomes into clockwork land. I mentioned the problem of giving them different abilities when they didn't necessarily need them, but also, the idea of putting regeneration ability on a creature that could easily be a 0/0 is confusing to new players. I think a number of them would assume that it must be a combo. I'm not against the idea, but it's problematic. Maybe they can be a 1/1? Maybe not... not sure. I could just change their name, since that's the thing we seem to be hung up on.
I'd say "Let's wait and see how many of each rarity I need." but this card clearly needs to change. I guess we're taking a vote: Jsys would like to bump up this up in rarity, maybe to rare. I'm guessing Vitenka is arguing for removing abilities and is comfortable for this to be common. I could do either, really. Anybody want to tip this in one direction or another?
Another idea would be the following. Including Clockwork Gnomes, there are three Clockwork creatures in the set. If you make the Gnomes work like Clockwork (meaning with counters) you could make a vertical cycle.
Steed at common with:
Gnomes at uncommon with:
Swarm at rare with:
Numbers would have to be tweaked to make for a fitting power level.
This would have Swarm as is with maybe a higher power level, I'd say at rare it could be undercosted for the first amount of counters. Steed would lose the counter resetting ability but I guess it fits the flavor, since 5/5 intimidate and "regenerate" is enormous for a horse imo. I put the Gnomes on uncommon there since they just have the more complex ability compared to the Steed. Gnomes would be quite a bit from where they where originally but as I said, they have been unintuitive from the start.
Hmm. Yeah, I'd just change "Not blocked by walls" to "Flying" and be done with it.
You could probably simplify the last ability (slightly) too
,
: Add or remove +1/+1 counters so that ~ has 3 of them.
But maybe removing the rewinding completely is the better way to simplify. Admittedly, then it's a condor reprint :)
Note that Mirrodin included many "revamped" Clockwork creatures, including two commons - Clockwork Beetle and Clockwork Condor (which also provide a possibly-simpler wording for the removing trigger?). Those did have the simplest version of the mechanic - "winding up" was saved for the higher rarities, Clockwork Vorrac and Clockwork Dragon.
This is quite a bit wordier than Clockwork Condor, it's true. I don't think the "end of combat" is where the simplification needs to occur.
Are you allowed to tweak the name to something similar, but that doesn't have the word "clockwork"?
It always bugged me that Clockwork Gnomes are the only card in existence with "Clockwork" in its name that doesn't use counters. Just sayin', it's your call after all.
You know, after toying with Clockwork Steed for so long, I just wasn't thinking about complexity. Mostly because I streamlined so many things that the card seemed simple now. But you're right. That's far too many words on a common.
I guess I got two choices. Dumb down the swarm, or push the swarm up to uncommon, and the Steed into rare. I'm likely to go with the second choice... but there really aren't many true commons in this set. What with the fact that half the commons were printed twice on the sheet with alternate artwork, and half the commons look like this... hmm...