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 2025-11-04 06:28:14)
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."?
Concept is someone who isolates themself because they're miserable over their past actions.
Changed Avalanche from tapping a creature as a bonus to allowing you to counter any spell instead. This way the avalanche is a powered-up version rather than something tacked on.
Not sure if I can just say this artifact taps for
.
I'm not sure what to cost this at. 5 is too high since it's a bad Gilded Lotus, but I was worried 3 might be too good since you could just have 3 snow lands.
The flavor of the restriction is that the Frozen Lotus can't bloom again unless it's cold enough.
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.
Tried to make wording clearer. Not sure if what I did helped.
Added descriptor to the name
I'll add a descriptor since that's something I should have done even when changing the name.
Have you ever seen muskox protecting their young? That's what this card was supposed to be. But yes, the tapped creature is supposed to be the one doing the protecting.
Isn't the one being tapped supposed to "jump in" to protect another creature - like a bodyguard?
Doing things Kamigawa did wrong already: Names.
It's better to have cardnames with attributes. There are a lot of different "<attribute> Dragon" "<attribute> Selkie" etc. Cards with singular names are worse (even when WotC uses them e. g. Archangel) and less descriptive - less easily grasped. And you have to work to make a proper noun descriptive beyond those familiar with the mythology here.
What I want to say is that General's Kabuto is a better cardname than Hankyu, because the first name at least comes with the connotations of "belongs to a general" which is entirely enough to explain the mechanics thematically - even if you think the foreign term might refer to a music instrument.
Removed snow supertype and changed name from "White Wastes Wurm" to something more flavorful.
I figured a planeswalker who'd want to be on Ulaqat would be some kind of cryomancer. I thought back to O Ott from Quinnesheen, and thought maybe someone from there. I considered the founder of Ice Edge weapons, but I didn't want to explain why/how the character would be so old. I guess Eo Jax was in the Crystal Order. His -4 is a reference to the paralyze mechanic from Quinnesheen.
It would seem more natural if the creature you ta is also the one you protect. But then it won't work when attacking. Maybe that's OK?
There is supposed to be a break after the additional cost to keep the wall of text compmartmentalized.
Which creature is "that creature"?
Torpor is more problematic than a redundant evasion ability, because it is a lot less easily grokked that P/T boost abilities can be redundant.
How often is a p/t boost a replacement effect?
"Other than during," not "outside"
added "outside of their draw step."