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 19:15:38)
Intended to be used in conjunction with other cards for evasive purposes, or as a defensive wall that "removes" a blocker later on.
Here is a (really bad) mockup of how the punch-out perforated cards for {+} abilities is going to look:
http://oi65.tinypic.com/dwco7q.jpg
Re: Tahazzar, I totally see what you mean about mechanical connections. The fact that the defining trait of the subtype is a downside is a pretty big one (much like how Maro has expressed that he doesn't like that "Legendary" type is purely downside). Though I find the best way to justify a type's existence (as with Clues, Curses, and other noncreature, block-specific subtypes) is to make sure there are cards that care about the types' existence (Bitterheart Witch, Trail of Evidence), and for there to be a strong flavor & mechanical link to the type. So expect cards that care about Talismans to pop up here and there in designs.
Re: Secret, I have an uncommon in the set that is specifically for Talisman decks in the guise of a hoser card - (((Inaction Through Action))).
Pithing Needle seems like a fine reprint, though pretty narrow when it comes to hosing enchantments. The current design of Inaction Through Action is really, really strong when it comes to hosing things right now though, so I might turn it into an enchantment with "Counter target activated ability" at a cost.
"Auras you control are indestructible" is a pretty out of the box way for destroying enchantments, though. I might put something of that sort on a White rare creature.
I totally could see a "Master of Talismans" that has "Activated abilities of Talismans you control can't be activated." or "Auras you control are indestructible." (depending on how modular it is supposed to be).
Fair enough.
I was actually thinking of those paper seals myself as well, but now that you mentioned it, they do kinda work in "reverse" instead.
I made that cycle almost immediately after posting on this card the first time in an attempt to think of a way how I would see a new noncreature subtype being justified. As I noticed them being flawed (among other things, the whole "
: Sac this" looks admittedly rather forced at fist glance), I almost refrained posting them altogether, but recalled their existence once more as I was looking through this set.
I can see how insularity (linearity?) and tokens at common can be seen as problematic, but to me that just expresses how every design choice has a cost.
Where you see the linearity of them being problematic, and to an extend I agree with that, I felt that having a somewhat superfluous subtype with no "real" mechanical connection is more erroneous. While these (your current designs) are backed up by flavor to some extent, IMO it's not as powerful as that of Curses for example and as such, fails to justify it's existence... but I could see myself siding on the other side given the right circumstance.
In the other news, given designs like (((Pacification Fu))), would Pithing Needle be a good reprint?
Yeah, Talismans are pretty catch-all in terms of magical properties; in games such as Nioh or anime (the first one that comes to mine is Hyou from Ushio to Tora), they're treated as consumable spells, but in a lot of Chinese contexts, I'm more familiar with them being enchantments that can be ripped off if necessary - paper seals, like those that reanimate Jiangshi or seal off areas from evil.
In regards to enchantment tokens, I haven't really thought about them in applying them to this concept, since they'd either need to have a single unifying effect once sacrificed (like Clues), or almost every card that creates them would have to have another ability that benefits from sacrificing/creating them. I wasn't a big fan of Energy for that reason - any additional "resource" that's built into the game will need a way to utilize the resource in individual cards' rule text, which will make the mechanic itself feel very insular unless the cards are built to be usable on its own (which has a whole other set of problems, as Energy's current dominance in standard demonstrates). I like the similarity your design has to the Seals in current Magic, but it's not the direction I can see myself taking Talismans in. Partly due to this reason, and partly because I'm avoiding tokens at common.
I've made this common cycle to demonstrate an idea that came to my mind when thinking about talismans / seals:
Talisman of Earth, Talisman of Fire, Talisman of Metal, Talisman of Water, and Talisman of Wood.
Unfortunately, "seals" are already a thing in MTG so... Eh, well, these do play into that concept though.
The main thing to take away from this is the concept of enchantment tokens that IMO would really well convey the idea of the talismans / seals as they've been depicted in the sources I've seen.
Ie. like
> Talisman (符 fú) – sometimes translated as a Seal. A strip of paper with mystical diagrams & calligraphy drawn on it. In these novels, they're essentially consumable spells. (When activated, they cast a spell and will disintegrate once their magic is depleted.)
IMO this could pretty easily cost just
(Claim // Fame, Timely Hordemate, Proclamation of Rebirth, etc).
I see what you mean, Secret. Wording is updated.
I don't think it should, jmg. It's a rare, so that's not a point of confusion you need to worry about, but also your phrasing implies that there's some trick to casting it that's not actually present.
Should this spell read "Counter target spell if it's a non-creature spell"? That would help reduce the targeting restriction problem, but I'm not sure if that's supposed to be part of the point. Either way, a lot of new players won't understand that they need a target to cast this spell.
Grammar kinds makes this wording ambiguous. It sounds like this modifies what happens if you cast a further spell in the future rather than modifying this spells effect if you cast a spell beforehand.
That's problematic if the effect still makes sense. Best/most simple fix is probably to replace "that spell" with "the targeted spell".
Monkey tribal. Not sure I'll use this design because it's a bit wordy, but since the Monkey King has so famous abilities, I figure I'd split them between multiple characters and cards.
This is the faction leader for the
state. Since they're a duo, I wanted abilities that function on both offense and defense. Given the amount of royalty in this set, I'm tempted to introduce a "Royalty" or "Noble" creature type, or at least some type that isn't "warrior".
Expensive Negate that lets you steal it for later if you cast another noncreature spell. Since I imagine that Sequence cards and counterspells won't mix too often in limited, in addition to only countering noncreatures, I figure it should be okay at
.
Getting the last of some proposed sequence designs out of the way first.
Tidings with a mana cost increase and a Sequence clause that lets you use the cards you draw immediately, potentially.
Basically, the flavor of this is supposed to be a Turtle dragon that carries the world on its back.
usually doesn't get Armageddon-esque effects, so I may change this over to 
later. I think it's an okay bend in Green since green can destroy lands.
The death trigger is on "dies" instead of "leaves the battlefield" to introduce a greater level of risk for the caster. Might lead to some feel-bad moments where the caster goes all-in only to have it bounced or exiled, but I assume this will be built around in constructed formats where it matters. Stats are pretty malleable, but for a seven mana Amageddon-on-a-Stick that has the option of being one-sided, I think 2/4 base is pretty okay.
Alternate version was a White turtle that gave you Hexproof and redirected all damage to itself, but it didn't feel as splashy. Might go back to that design if this isn't received well.
This is just Zealous Inquisitor, isn't it? Oh... no, right, it still has to be to your own creature. Sorry, ignore me.
I am a fan of that white ability. I'm still fond of Refractive Cagemail. This is going to play pretty similar to the en-Kor, indeed.
This seems an interesting comparison to Tendo Ice Bridge. Power level doesn't seem obviously too high or too low.
Other design is just a Mirrodin's Core -- or an awful version thereof, if you intended to have not T:C.
--CF
Alternatively, my other design was:
: Put a peach counter on ~.
, Remove a peach counter on ~: Add one mana of any color to your mana pool.
But I was concerned about the powerlevel and I'm not a fan of counters on lands at uncommon, so here this is. A much better version of the Kamigawa dual lands. A bit concerned about eternal format power level, but I don't think this is that much better in those formats than, say, Gemstone Mine or Mana Confluence.
Not sure how to value what will essentially be a chump block. I think this is just about right, though.
Blaze that has an optional pseudo-Ride Down mode to force damage through.
Ignore all non-PG13 interpretations of concubines, please.
Slightly different version of the various en-kor (Nomads en-Kor).
Monstrous 2 > 
Monstrous 3.
Monstrous > 
Monstrous for better R/B Monstrous curve.
Trying out a cheap green mythic. Hopefully reads more exciting/powerful than it plays. Hitting lands will probably make it much more consistent, but might be too powerful as a pseudo-Explore if you hit a land each turn. Note that it's not really card advantage since you're just potentially casting the card you draw for free. Will probably tweak more later.