Cards With No Home: Recent Activity
| Cards With No Home: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics | Other non-themed cardsets | Skeleton |
Recent updates to Cards With No Home: (Generated at 2025-05-01 09:16:28)
how does this trigger ? while this is on the stack ? what's the timing window ?
See Inscrutable Spellforme.
It's always my dumbest designs that end up having the most conversation. Haha
Perhaps to nobody's surprise, I didn't put that much thought into this — I just spat out an idea, partially based on flavor. I considered banking the "aetherial battlefield" the "blind eternities" since I was thinking of the upcoming story events.
Mmmm, also the mechanic from Raging Rivers and (Shadow) and .... there does seem to be a lot of demand for "Let's have two separate fights" among rules designers. Heck, even Shaharazad can be seen as "Put half your life into a separate battle".
Looked at that way, Shaharazad is the actual cleanest implementaiton of the concept, but suffers from being horribly slow. This is almost at the other end of that spectrum - the sub game runs entirely concurrently with it, and you have to run both concurrently with resources shared between them. (To truly go to the other end, you'd play two-handed as well; draw to both hand; mana duplicated to both fields.)
Is this the sweetspot? I think I agree with te consensus that it's not. There's a huge amount of complexity in rules and state, in exchange for, effectively, "sometimes some creatures have 'Cannot block or be blocked'".
... and that makes me think that while I said there's an end to this spectrum - the other end actually extends further; with banding being in the direction of its opposite.
On to other issues - I don't see a way to simplify even the reminder-text verison of these rules enough to allow any card to have any substantial ability being aetherial. Which is maybe OK since as long as you have STARTED aetherial, any other creature will continue it. And a one drop common to turn on this entire feature is an extremely bold statement of "Aetherial will be enabled for the next three years." Which is likely to be divisive.
One large possible pitfall - which the inability to print more than "Flying, Aetherial" scared me into - evasion abilities on top of splitting the battlefield in two is just going to be an incredibly annoying thing. Decks will have to more than double their defences against evasion. Which seems like it'll limit deck building and drafting to "Ok, I've got my 18 removal spells, which 2 creatures should I run?"
Many more rules will need to be written to make this to work; so far it is not good enough, I think. There are many considerations to make.
I had to look up the mechanic you referenced, and oops. That is really similar 😅
Would it be a Link design if it didn't overly complicate something?
Ah, the stygian mechanic from Theros Beyond Death, but more complicated
Fixed a typo and added "nonland" for some reason
Everything below that line is "locked."
I know I didn't explain this AT ALL, but the line of text that says "locked" is meant to indicate a frame treatment of some kind, yes.
• The battlefield and the aetherial battlefield don't intersect. Each treats the other as though it doesn't exist.
• When casting spells that interact with permanents, players much choose which battlefield that spell is affecting. Spells with multiple targets can't target across the two battlefields, and "Destroy all..." and other blanket effects affect only one battlefield at a time.
Effects are discard and mill (by way of exile). That feels black, maybe blue-black. Triggering of enchantments itself is something any color could do,so this really lacks a component that makes this feel green.
This hoser is so narrow and the buy-off cost so steep, this could outright forbid the exile.
Some wording issues e. g. in the graveyard you have permanent cards, not permanents.
It is unusual for abilities like this to cover static abilities.
I feel, this could be a "hatebear" i. e. 2/2.
Mechanically, Archmage Ascension makes perfect sense: Jump through a hoop to get a reward. Same here.
Wouldn't it make more sense, mechanically, for doors to start off unlocked? That way if your opponent isn't running creatures (or whatever the trigger for unlocking is) you still got at least one use off of the door. Might require higher activation costs, but simplifies the design too...
It probably does; since I think that's there to say the door starts off locked.
This could probably do with a new frame treatment if it was real. Like adventures got.
This is neat. The mechanic really explains itself. Technically, do you need "[LOCKED:]"? Locking the card is part of the cost, so presumably you couldn't activate it unless you can change the cards state from locked to unlocked.
Or you could make it a Shard enchantment creature token.
Ope
Guess these need a new subtype