Immersturm: Recent Activity

Recent updates to Immersturm: (Generated at 2026-07-29 18:08:50)
Page 1 - Older activity

• 2024-03-22 21:29:13: Mister Johnson commented on Bonebeam Trenches

  I like this one. Many Fortifications on here could easily be Enchantments, but this plays with its artifact nature.

• 2012-06-15 11:01:15: Alex commented on Centaur Omenreader

  I always liked the way that Centaur Omenreader was randomly Snow.

• 2012-06-15 06:09:52: ttt3142 commented on Centaur Omenreader

  FYI, this is a Future Sight reprint.

• 2012-06-15 01:44:42: Link commented on Centaur Omenreader

  I do really like this ability, though.

• 2012-06-15 01:31:48: Rudyard commented on Centaur Omenreader

  are there other snow creatures in the set? i don't know if this makes sense flavorwise

• 2012-01-30 20:26:55: Benjamin Draper commented on the cardset Immersturm

  This project is going on hiatus while I work on other M:TG and gaming projects. If interested in working on this, let me know and I'll think about it :-)

• 2011-08-11 09:03:50: Jack V commented on Ætherblink

  I agree we shouldn't compare things to PtE without adding a mana, but a "1W: exile target attacking or blocking creature. Return it to the battlefield at..." without cantrip would be strictly worse than Turn to Mist, which I don't think anyone thought was ridiculously overpowered? Surely exiling temporarily is significantly less powerful than exiling permanently.

  I'm not much of a judge at costing, but 1W cantrip doesn't sound overly aggressive (obviously playtesting may show it's more useful than I expect, but it seems a reasonable cost to start from). I agree the cantrip is a good idea, else this will often be card disadvantage.

• 2011-08-11 02:04:32: Camruth commented on Ætherblink

  I actually prefer the 3-mana cantrip myself. I think PtE was a mistake, and StP was from early on before they understood the strength of different abilities.
  What I meant was, those cards have set a precedent (however much yo do or don't like it) and certain portions of the community expect anything similar to be on par or close to the power of those older cards.
  Personally, I think this is fine.

• 2011-08-10 22:54:03: Alex commented on Ætherblink

  I'd certainly prefer the 3-mana cantrip.

• 2011-08-10 22:53:16: Alex commented on Dogpile

  The flavour text even fits the set perfectly.

• 2011-08-10 18:05:46: Benjamin Draper commented on Dogpile

  Ah, yes. I'd like to have all new cards, but the reprint will do for now.

• 2011-08-10 18:05:30: Benjamin Draper edited Dogpile:

  Named.

• 2011-08-10 18:03:19: Benjamin Draper edited Geomancer's Gift:

  Moved to rare; ability left as permanent change.

• 2011-08-10 17:58:28: Benjamin Draper commented on Ætherblink

  Do you think this design works better at the slot? If so, I could remove the cantrip. I'm just afraid it would be underutilized without replacing itself.

• 2011-08-10 17:56:29: Benjamin Draper commented on Cataphract Shade

  When equipped, it becomes mobile. I imagine it as something like those suits of armor that mysteriously come to life and hunt the protagonist of a typical dungeon crawl. When triggered (equipped), the ghostly suit of armor mounts its equally ghostly steed and begins to attack.

• 2011-08-10 17:52:37: Benjamin Draper commented on Equine Plunderer

  Isn't it then equally reasonable to reference the card Plunder?

• 2011-08-10 17:49:55: Benjamin Draper edited Effluvial Presence:

  Edited for proper wording.

• 2011-08-08 14:46:52: Link commented on Equine Plunderer

  I agree.

• 2011-08-08 14:35:16: Camruth commented on Equine Plunderer

  could call it Equine Pillager as a reference to the card Pillage

• 2011-08-05 18:05:03: Link commented on Equine Plunderer

  "Plundering" seems like a weird flavor for destroying an artifact.

• 2011-07-18 20:51:49: Alex commented on Gustcloak Askari

  Nope. Compare with Gustcloak Harrier, Gustcloak Runner, Gustcloak Sentinel etc. Removing from combat does that automatically.

• 2011-07-18 19:32:31: Link commented on Gustcloak Askari

  I like this ability. But do you need a clause about it not dealing or taking damage?

• 2011-07-18 19:30:39: Link commented on Cataphract Shade

  Aren't cataphracts mounted units? How does this represent that?

• 2011-05-28 05:20:57: jmgariepy commented on Dogpile

  ­Dogpile?

• 2011-05-26 08:01:05: Blakemeister commented on Ætherblink

  I don't think Camruth was supporting/arguing the case for StP or PtE, more like saying that, as they exist and set a precedent. Also given cards like excommunicate, vengeance, etc. If this didn't have the cantrip then yeah would be a good cost, with the cantrip I agree that is probably better.

• 2011-05-26 02:41:58: Camruth commented on Tireless Recruiter

  Ravnica had a bit of a token creature subtheme, Lorwyn/Shadowmoor block was all about tribal and had a lot of token generation and future sight block well.....

  If token creatures are a big part of the set then yes this would likely be fine at common.

• 2011-05-26 02:38:12: Camruth commented on Effluvial Presence

  you are correct Alex, it does need that extra bit of text, good catch.

• 2011-05-24 15:38:25: Alex commented on Tireless Recruiter

  Well, maybe... Bramble Elemental, Sprout Swarm and Stonybrook Schoolmaster were repeatedly making tokens quite recently.

• 2011-05-24 15:27:15: Alex commented on Effluvial Presence

  But that doesn't work. At the moment it's telling you - the controller of this card - to sacrifice the enchanted creature. You can only sac things you control. If you want the sac to work to kill opponents' creatures too, then this needs to say "its controller sacrifices it".

• 2011-05-24 15:26:04: Alex commented on Stilldeep Sentry

  This seems fine as is to me. It gets killed by any 1-damage effect, even a Rain of Blades if they time it right.