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 14:32:42)
Aye, they are.
Removed p/t boost, reduced cost by 1, specialized reminder text for aura
Would granting torpor twice be any more of an issue than another non-stacking ability appearing multiple times? That makes sense about boosting the p/t though.My bad on the reminder text, as I just used the reminder text which was intended for creatures.
Followed SecretInfiltrator's advice? Also removed snow supertype since it no longer references nor uses snow in anyway.
Followed SecretInfiltrator's advice.
Returned to "target creatures with counters on them." As +1/+1 counters appear in this set, and generally seem to be the most frequently appearing type of counters, I believe this state is a bend on white's "destroy target creature with power 4 or greater."
I thought "you control" would be a necessary part of the symmetry - even if the color pie can support otherwise.
Isn't the defensive build already served really well by the ability to remove multiple attackers for two mana? Which seems insane, thinking about it. Hmmm...
Well, anyway. It's a card with multiple modes. Not all modes need to be useful in every deck in every situation, but I can see a white deck e. g. throwing some tokens into the red zone to get some sweep out of it.
I probably forgot to make the second mode include "up to."
Do you suggest the second ability should be any attacking creatures, or just attacking creatures the player controls? I wouldn't be opposed to letting the player use this to blow up opponents' artifacts and enchantments based on the number of the opponent's attacking creatures. That penalization feels pretty white; however, that version would omit "your control," breaking that aspect of symmetry. I would think only allowing this to hit off one's own attacking creatures wouldn't feel useful for defensive styles of play that white may have, and could thus make the mode very bad in certain decks.
Removed line break
Added an additional snow mana to the cost and limited the ability to two uses per turn.
Followed SecretInfiltrator's suggestion.
You usually get any type of creature with one or two +1/+1 counters at five e. g. for Fearsome Awakening.
So a converted mana cost of four is closer for this card that gets you a counter, but cannot be used on nonsnow anyway.
I think, the better design is to reanimate any target creature, but get a counter or two for snow creatures.
Is that usually something someone is worried about with their bounce spells? I mean, you cast two spells that turn, which should create plent of room in your hand, so this is specifically for the case you do the thing done "occasionally" after already casting a card draw spell.
Usually, if I at all bounce my own stuff it's reactive, which makes it less likely a follow up to my own spell - not to mention a card draw spell (which I'd expect more often to be played instead of a reactive bounce spell).
Have you considered to just go with more broad bounce spell, maybe "nonland permanent" and a cost reduction, or just going all Reflector Mage on this?
No, bouncing one's own creatures isn't a theme, but it's something that a bounce spell is used for occasionally.
My thought process for the card was this.
On some cards ( e.x. Obliterating Cold and White Death) Avalanche is a pumped up version of the original. I wanted to try and incorporate Avalanche onto more cards, but some were harder to power up, like this counter spell. For situations where I wanted to Avalanche, but the base of the spell couldn't be powered up, I tried to tack on ability.
From a top-down perspective, I felt this ability made sense to appear in the set on a single card. It's true that this wouldn't mesh with cards that have Thawing though. For what it's worth, I considered making it opponent instead of player, but opted against it, if just for personal taste.
This set does not use -1/-1 counters.
I forgot that in modern times reanimation isn't cheap, even when restricted. Perhaps 5 () should be the cost?
The creature name and type were chosen arbitrarily. Feel free to suggest a more fitting match for the abilities.
You sometimes see this as a straight-up triggered ability on creatures. Making this activated as well doesn't make it easier, does it?
Shouldn't the activated ability still create a delayed triggered ability anyway?
But thawing is a theme! An ability word that appears on fellow snow creatures even! What message are you trying to send here?
Torpor doesn't stack, so granting torpor on a common to a card that potentially has torpor itself is an issue.
Is a p/t boost the correct bonus to pair with a keyword that creates p/t boosting counters?
Reminder text here definitely should not say "this creature", but "that creature" or "enchanted creature".
The activated ability belongs on the bottom.
Activated ability and evasion ability creates some undue tension. Even flying would be a better choice in context since it's at least an ability that also helps on defense, so keeping a flier back to do double duty as blocker and to tap for its effect feels less unnatural.
Shouldn't there be additional line breaks before flavor text even more so than between abilities?
Is it a theme that the main effect and the avalanche kicker are glue-gunned together rather than meaningfully playing into one another?
Seems harsh. Hits half of the creatures in this set and is extremely potent and repeatable - instant speed activations and unrestricted splitting of activations over multiple targets per turn means you can also dominate combat.
This is an extremely harsh hoser that puts Virtue's Ruin to shame.
Is there anything speaking against making the second mode count attacking creatures? After all the symmetry was part of the original design and this is an instant, so you could play it like that.
You mentioned both modes should be "up to", but only the first one is. I agree, that the second mode doesn't feel like it should blow up your own stuff.
How do you choose where to insert additional line breaks? How does the "Choose 1:" deserve to be separated from the options you choose, but the options themselves are really tight to each other?
The top-down is good in this one.
Defender looks lonely down there, but part of that is that a static on-battlefield keyword ability like it belongs on top in on this card, while the on-battelfield triggered ability belongs below.
At that cost you probably meant -1/-1 counter anyway.
Snow creatures exist. This two mana reanimation still hits 10/10s and flying 6/4s in this very set and you get a bonus rather than the usual "lose life equal to its mana cost"?
Nope.