The Fading Aurora: Recent Activity
| The Fading Aurora: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics | Skeleton |
Recent updates to The Fading Aurora: (Generated at 2025-12-14 02:33:40)
| The Fading Aurora: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics | Skeleton |
Recent updates to The Fading Aurora: (Generated at 2025-12-14 02:33:40)
More complete answer:
Initially I planned on the Aspects dichotomy being something that was constantly in flux. Some cards were going to be better in one Aspect than the other because it made you think strategically about when the best times to flip Aspects were.
The more I toyed with them though, the more it became clear that having a lot of flipping happening was going to get potentially messy (especially if you wound up with a mix of Light and Dark Aspected permanents in play at once). Since that point, I’ve been leaning into the idea that you’ll probably only flip two or three times per game with most builds. I still want the two Aspects even in strategies that generally want to stuck to one or the other because it lets me get double-use out of slots while also allowing for moments where the dual-nature really matters.
For instance, white’s approach to the Aspects is that it wants to see the flips happen a lot. That means pairing it with blue (which will have more tools to make that happen), or using black tricks like recursion to get cards back so that they can be played again for the choice trigger.
Black cares less about which side you choose; I intend to have it want primarily one side or the other depending on what other colors you pair it with; it will tend to serve responsively to other strategies.
Updated.
It’s a holdover from an earlier version of the Aspect mechanic. I need to fix it.
What's the intention behind making one side strictly better?
Is there manifest in this set as well?
Having some experience with transforming lands and the gameplay I can assure you that having such a high variety of similar but different DFC lands at common is a bad idea. The most simple cycle of these maybe, but everything but that would be better suited at uncommon.
Is this just an Alpha dualland upgrade now that you changed how both Aspect and Nodes work?
Lots of points here I can respect, but I’m sticking with the DFc’s for now. As clunky as the conditions and reminder text may be, DFCs offer more space to use the standard visual cues without asking players to change behavioral play patterns. The link from your post isn’t currently working, but I look forward to going back and reading it.
LOR/SHD didn’t use any actual mechanics to link the two together, just thematic repetition and mirroring. Mechanically, there was no notable reason to actually play the two together.
This set would theoretically be the first time the two planes were allowed to actually blend, and that’s why I like the DFCs; aspects of both planes are actually able to see each in the context of gameplay.
The idea with aspect-light/darks is to describe the duality of shadowmoor/lorwyn, right? IIRC the original block used to test out mechanics relating to night/day cycle or whatever.
As I've said before, I would generally stay away from DFCs unless there's absolutely no other option. As such, here's a couple of ideas for this:
> Duality - Whenever ~ is tapped to the left, ... Whenever it's tapped to the right, ...
> As long as ~ is tapped to the left, ...
For the first bullet point, I have though about using something kin to it in the future sets.
> Daybeak - As long as it's your turn, ...
Or you could have two different stats on the face of the card that are alternatively active depending on who's turn it is.