Ulaqat: Recent Activity
Ulaqat: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
Mechanics | Skeleton | Ulaqat Map | Cards that actually have a flavor reference |
Recent updates to Ulaqat: (Generated at 2024-05-19 15:22:57)
Hmm, this now looks very similar to Reality Shift. This isn't critique - just an observation.
Switched to instant and reduced cmc by 1. Token reduced from 3/3 to 2/2
Pongify had the problem that it used "destroy" rather than "exile" - thematically an ill fit; the card has been remade as Rapid Hybridization, because the concept is fine though. Maybe a single mana instant is a little bit too good for what you are planning, but adding to the cost and making it a sorcery? That's a bit much.
Creature types are capitalized: "3/3 blue Fish creature token".
Also something went wrong in the making of that eminder text, like two sentences being mangled into one.
Now a 3/3 fish
I wasn't sure how blue was doing baleful polymorph spells nowadays. I went off Curse of the Swine. Yeah, 3 is fine with me. Big for a fish, but hey that's why you jank it up with Ringed Seal.
This reminds me of Afterlife and somewhat of Mercy Killing.
The token should at least be a 2/2 IMO. MaRo would agree.
Maybe two 1/1s? I don't know how any of these changes would fit with the flavor.
xD I just thought up a card idea inspired by the flavor:
> Back to School
> Instant
> Exile target creature, then its controller creates X 1/1 blue Fish creature tokens, where X is that creature's power (CMC?).
Was almost a Cat, but then I switched to Fox instead. I picked a random word to tack on to fox because I didn't have anything that made sense (nor did I when it was a lynx).
An item used by Eo Jax, Cryo Champion. I considered using a real-world sword type for a more descriptive name, but since I wanted to avoid real-world parallels on Quinnesheen I went a generic name.
bleh, I wanted to say that I don't like using "permanent that is an artifact or enchantment" because that just sounds weird when read. Like, the meaning doesn't seem any more or less unclear than "destroy descriptor type X or descriptor type Y," but descriptor permanent type x or type y just sounds weird when said aloud. I acknowledge that repeating words is also very annoying though.
Followed SecretInfiltrator's wording advice. Fwiw, I don't like how
that creature/flash part should be its separate ability (pargraph) and be at the beginning of the text.
The word "nonsnow" contains no hyphen. The hyphens appear for subtypes since those are capitalized and "nonGoblin" apparently is bad English. :)
Also there is a new card that suggests the main text could be "Destroy target nonsnow permanent that is an artifact or enchantment." It helps to avoid repeating the same term a lot.
I couldn't find a way to fit the ability in a single, clear sentence.
Used Tahazzar's wording.
> Draw a card.
> Target player reveals their hand. Unless a snow card was revealed this way, discard a card.
?
This card sucks when compared to Peek which isn't stellar either.
I was missing a space after the 1. I had no idea that would affect the formatting here.
Updated based on SecretIlfintrator's information.
Name change
What does "Add ." mean? is a cost representing mana produced from a snow source (IIRC the current rules say "snow permanent" since WotC decided only using it like that, but it's a common change for custom cards and entirely feasible - also the difference is irrelevant to this card), so if you want a permanent to produce mana that is able to pay for it needs to be a snow permanent that is able to produce the mana to pay for .
Now there are cards that can remove the snow type from a permanent, so this could conceivably be a nonsnow permanent that says "Add ." and that mana cannot be used to pay for a cost. That's weird.
There are already artifacts and creatures that show you how to word this. Why are you not looking those up? That's like day 0 research when including snow mana in your set: Look at what snow mana is and how it has been used... Sorry. Watching too much CinemaSins makes me rant.
Just... Boreal Druid.
> The flavor of the restriction is that the Frozen Lotus can't bloom again unless it's cold enough.
How does that lead to:
> Frozen Lotus doesn't untap unless you control less than five snow permanents.
? Wouldn't "cold enough" be better represented with MORE snow permanents?
> It should go 1. then 2. but I don't understand the formatting. I have two there in the text, but I don't know why the second line indents and changes the 2 to 1.
Are you missing a space after the "1."?