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 14:26:46)
No, as in replacing the "return to hand" clause with the draw clause. It makes undoing it kind of redundant, though...
Of course it isn't, but its got the spirit for it.
Unless the two died during first strike damage or before normal combat damage was dealt, no. Intervening ifs check on trigger and resolution - meaning that when the ability would trigger, state based actions haven't applied yet and the other two creatures are still alive with lethal damage marked on them.
Hmmm. I think you tie color pie much heavily into development number fiddling process - which is usually isn't that related to.
Ie. It can lead to stuff like where
> "Derp, blue has problems dealing with resolved threats. Hey, design just submitted this Rapid Hybridization. Let's make it 'playable' by reducing that cost by
and making it an instant."
As far as I know, in the recent years there has been much more of an integration between design and development, with 'devign' and such, so your view could possibly become the norm - even more than it already might be.
> Oh, and there's also Withering Boon and a couple of other color-specific counterspells that it gets. But its not a very set-in-stone precedent, much like Blue getting weird protection and White getting tithing counters.
I don't think there's any precedent to speak of really, but if Eunuch's Laughter is what we're really talking about here, I can say I like it. :)
Is it competitive though? ;)
Target of Spell, not ability. So it's a 2-card combo costing
that the target can pay 5 to avoid. Pretty sure that's already in scope.
I would imagine this would be used with some targeting tapper, meaning the enchanted creature's destruction would be at the finger tips of the player of aura - making the "revoke" ability quite useless. That would also make it recurring creature destruction in
which would be... not right?
What? You mean it would draw a card whenever the enchanted creature dies? That's would be a crazy draw engine. The fact it recurs gives it already that questionable Rancor level CA.
Not that I'm aware of. All enchantress are female by default obviously and then on the older card side there are at least two Sorceresses and one Priestess.
Question about the card: If I attack with three creatures, and the other two die in combat while this survives to deal the damage, will the discard trigger?
All colors get cantrips/cycling so
getting "draw" out of the mechanic is not an issue. Capashen Standard is perfectly fine for example. Arguably Angelic Gift as well. Plus, you know, 
has dappled with the enchantress theme before so even if it was pushing so color pie boundary...
I would definitely try out the keyword. Unless a mechanic is named, it's likely that players won't realize it's a mechanic (or a theme). Like that aforementioned Capashen Standard and Brass Secretary were meant to be a "cycling from play" mechanic, but very few of the players got it since it specifically didn't have a name. To levitate this issue, if you didn't want to make it a parameterized keyword, you could alternatively make it a pseudokeyword.
Second story spotlight card. Not sure if the effect is good in context of the set, but Red is a little less voltron-heavy than the other colors.
The "balance" to the Yin/Yang. Spells only to keep shenanigans with cards like Mage of the Five Stars balanced.
Yin and Yang aren't complete opposites unfortunately but one does "purification" and the other does "corruption".
Trying out a stickier design for the uncommon talismans. If the mechanic changes to include draw a card, the recursion effect will probably be adjusted to draw a card too.
Type change to imp.
Mediocre defender with a Graceful Reprieve/Faith's Reward variant. A little concerned it might step on Tanri, Celestial Daughter's toes a bit. Note that this can be used on opposing creatures in a pinch, unless they were sacrificed - it replaces the death effect, so Bequeath never triggers. White/Black is all about sticky creatures in this set.
Not sure if there's a rule about generic cards needing to be gender neutral, but I think I'm breaking it.
Finally getting around to replying to this. I was strongly considering adding the draw effect earlier, but I was concerned about the ramifications of giving White more sources of card draw. I plan on drafting up some common-only archetype decks soon - if Talismans prove weak or boring, its definitely one of the first things I'll add.
Adding the draw will also lend more of an argument to making it a keyworded mechanic, too. I was pretty hesitant to keyword an all-drawback mechanic.
I'll circle back around to the initial discussion of bouncing tapped creatures. I wouldn't specifically rule out
bouncing untapped creatures or bouncing in general, but I don't think it needs to exist. If a set called for it - for example, if there was a mechanic in the set that indirectly nullified a lot of Red's usual ways to push through damage - I could see Red getting untapped bounce at a more expensive rate than typical blue bounce. I'd cost it similar to what it costs here. But that's not because I think red should get untapped bounce within the confines of this design/set - I'd like this to fulfill a certain role for certain decks, so untapped bounce is the way to go.
And yeah, I agree that
's new direct damage spells are not the direction I would take the color. But I see your point. As for Hornet Sting in 
- and discussion about Psionic Blast - I'd be a little more iffy about it, but if the environment would benefit from blue having access to backlash-direct damage (i.e. 1 to thing, 1 to self), I would be okay with it. I can't imagine a format where blue's reactive and temporary removal suite would weaken so much as to need proactive, permanent, onboard removal, but if there's a good reason for it...
In other words, my idea of the color pie is that it provides a baseline idea for what is acceptable within a color, then bends as needed to meet the color's identity within a set. For example, if White was a more defensive color in a set, I'd look for in-color ways to improve their defensive pool, then branch out to more "out-there" mechanics that are on the fringes of its color pie (say, an Assault Formation effect) if it still felt a little lacking defensively. So I'd be okay with any effect existing in any color, as long as there were very strong reasons for said effect - though the reasoning would need to be very, very good if its a completely wild effect (i.e. Murder in Green) In this case, I am concerned about Red/Blue decks being able to maintain tempo against aggressive decks, so this is a relatively weak defensive spell with an upside that allows red to race better.
Oh, and there's also Withering Boon and a couple of other color-specific counterspells that it gets. But its not a very set-in-stone precedent, much like Blue getting weird protection and White getting tithing counters.
> ...and black gets punisher counterspells
Are there any other besides Dash Hopes?
> ... the color pie will shift to accomodate eventually just like how the color pie shifted to move direct damage away from Black in favor of -X/-X.
I'm pretty sure that was made to differentiate black and red. I don't get your point of the color pie "accommodating". This was very surely made with purpose in mind.
And well, okay,
's been getting some love for damage - which I don't personally care for that much - but that wasn't really the point. Let's put it in an another way, would you green lit 
Hornet Sting? Ie. Aether Storm for example?
What I'm getting is that Psionic Blast's problem by your convention isn't that
doesn't do direct damage, but that blast specifically does it too well in a color that isn't specialized in it.
> I feel that custom card design gives a bit of leeway into shaping the color pie a bit to the vision of the set, and my vision of Red for this set gives them a bit more tools to deal with aggression that it can't outrace.
Fair enough. Still the card bugs me. So if
can bounce tapped, doesn't it now mean that it can't bounce untapped creatures? That seems backwards considering that bouncing untapped would be more alike to what it's doing already.
Also, since we if aren't exactly saying that things don't belong or "can't be done" in a color, how overcosted would bouncing untapped creatures be in
? Say, in comparison to bouncing tapped creatures?
If there's a good reason for Hornet Sting, or if direct damage was done in a manner that was more in line with Green's philosophy (say, ETB hornet sting on a creature, similar to Atzocan Archer), then yes, I'd be all in favor of green getting hornet sting. I wouldn't be in favor of green getting multi-use pinging or anything above 1 damage, though, since that treads on Red's mechanical territory.
Bounce has been okay'd in Red, and limiting it to tapped bounce is like limiting white to only dealing direct damage to attacking/blocking/reflecting. Blue gets all counterspells, but white gets temporary/minor tax counterspells, and black gets punisher counterspells. If there's mechanical reasoning by the creator as to why Green needs a Hornet Sting, why not? If its popular and plays well, the color pie will shift to accomodate eventually just like how the color pie shifted to move direct damage away from Black in favor of -X/-X. We already see Green getting much stronger removal that involves less risk for its creatures - see Rapid Bite and Clear Shot compared to old green removal which involved pumping or lure effects. I see working on reevaluating color identity (not wholly, just seeing what's okay to bend/break in the context of a set design) as a design thing thats curtailed by development.
Color pie, to a player, is determined by the cards available in the pool that they see. A player evaluating the color pool based on 8th Edition is going to see it slightly differently than a player evaluating it based off of Magic Origins. I feel that custom card design gives a bit of leeway into shaping the color pie a bit to the vision of the set, and my vision of Red for this set gives them a bit more tools to deal with aggression that it can't outrace.
Hey! See Black: Counter Creature Spells.
> I assume it's due to our differing philosophies of the color wheel - I view "color is weak in X" not as "color shouldn't have X" but rather "color should get X if its weaker than other color's versions of X".
So you would green light Hornet Sting/Bee Sting and such? That kind of position would shift basically all the color pie issues heavily onto development's responsibility, which is quite weird. Usually, keeping the color pie intact is seen as design's thing. After all, the task does coincidence much of the time with flavor and mechanical mappings of each set.
Ie.
BB > 2B
That's reasonable. Cost adjusted.
Given that its an intro pack rare, I feel like making its power level a little weaker than what it could be is fine. I believe Wizards considers "casting without paying mana costs" simpler to understand than "casting with paying mana costs" - which is my primary concern with this. Your version of the ability includes some balance concerns with being able to flashback any spell, but I think it should be fine. It's not necessarily what I am going for in this design, though.
There's actually Sunblotter, but I do intend on an enemy-colored off-color activation cycle at uncommon and ally-colored activation cycle at rare to replace the newly removed multicolor slots.