Xianlu: Recent Activity
| Xianlu: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics | Skeleton | Bequeath Abilities | Flavor & Plot | Intro Pack Decklists | Draft Archetypes |
Recent updates to Xianlu: (Generated at 2025-05-01 11:01:24)
I have no clue what I'm doing.
I have a larger pool of creatures with activated abilities than most sets, so I could say it was a conscious choice, but it's not. It's mostly an oversight on my part.
But I kind of like it because it saves words.
I plan on dropping this keyword for the second set of the block, actually, mostly because I don't want to un-tie it to Seals. I might make a couple of seals with on-destruction abilities though, as a sort of time-delay bomb that you can avoid by getting the creature it's enchanting killed first.
Changed card. No longer Li Bai, now Zhang He. Hopefully should make a nice build-around with Zodiac Enshrined or encourage a specific type of drafting.
counter each spell targetting it -> hexproof. No real functional difference aside from if the opponent has two+ pieces of removal.
I'm curious about the "creatures activating their abilities"... Is this an oversight or a conscious choice?
> Enchanted creature can't attack and its activated abilities can't be activated.
Obviously I approve of the keyworded version of seal. Going "future sight" with it I came up
> ((C89622)) & Sealed Ravager
... though maybe for a name "banish" or the like would be more appropriate. These don't seem that compatible here - maybe something akin to them in the future sets of the block?
It's part of thinking it might be too efficient when flat-cast, part of it encouraging using it for defensive rather than offensive purposes. I think I'll just modify the text to be changed to "if you cast it for its reflex cost", because Seeing Spectres uses the same line of text and I think that's less mess-up-able.
I agree this is likely to be misused. Why bother with the "Not your turn" limit, anyway? Just too efficient when flat-cast?
Name change. The word "Typhoon" has asiatic roots. So does "Brainwashing". The more you know~
Since most of the auras in this set are detrimental and this is at Rare, I think it doesn't particilarly discourage use of Auras. It's an extra way for decks with Talismans to get value from their use against monstrous decks.
In constructed, it's possible.
Well, that's one way to make sure no one ever uses an aura ever.
Not sure if that's the correct wording on the effect, but it's there.
Talismans are now Seals.
This change is due to two reasons: My original name for the class of cards was Seal but I second-guessed it because Seal of X was already established mechanically (an enchantment that you could sacrifice). This is technically in line with that, so I'm more okay with it now. The naming scheme is different enough to hopefully differentiate them.
The other reason is because "Untalisman" is not an actual word. Unseal fits nicely with the flavor I'm going for, so Seal is now the subtype and the name of all of the previous Talisman/Fus.
Also, Talisman/Fus now draw a card upon unsealing them. To balance this slightly, the unseal cost is generally reduced by
from their original unseal cost. I want unsealing talismans to be a legitimate strategic maneuver and consideration when casting them, and usually paying 
to unseal a 2-drop is pretty lackluster unless you've stalled out. Unseal costs are generally in the 
to 
range for now. Drawing a card has been added to help keep up with card flow. A lot of combat tricks in this set (should) be playable, and I want to encourage a back-and-forth flurry of spells/abilities during combat. Making unseal costs a bit more enticing should help with that back-and-forth gameplay.
Unseal cost is unchanged from original cost because I want this to be a little more powerful.
Most unseal costs are
less than their original, but this one isn't because it's fairly marginal.
Unlike other unseal costs, this one remains at 5 because it's so marginal.