Ulgrotha: Darkness Falls Forever: Recent Activity
| Ulgrotha: Darkness Falls Forever: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| What is "Ulgrotha: Darkness Falls Forever" |
Recent updates to Ulgrotha: Darkness Falls Forever: (Generated at 2025-05-02 05:51:53)
How does it compare to things like Snapcaster, Goyf, Stone Forge? Hopefully, not as "good" but still "good enough" to be playable for sure?
A 2/1 with haste that can sometimes kill a creature doesn't seem OP to me. It's certainly much better than Spitting Earth, but that was common and this is rare.
Spitting Earth attached to a 2/1 body in rare? Yeah, that sounds fair. Oh, hold it... Haste? It's kind of pushing it, but maybe. It certainly reads a lot better than Flametongue Kavu...
Ok...how does this look (I was going for a 'good' 2 drop for red, since every other color has good omnipresent 2-drops.)
Changed it to a 3/6 from 6/6. A flying, 3/6 that can gain protection from removal (as long as its one, or just be a stubborn blocker) is to good at uncommon for 7 mana.
I shouldn't talk...I don't play a lot of anything other then EDH...
lol.
There was a time it was a good trump against Serra Angel. That's back in the day when there was only one real deck, and everyone built decks in response to it. Archangel over Serra in your deck meant that you could cast one less Swords to Plowshares or Counterspell, since your opponent could have one Serra Angel in play with no ramifications.
Otherwise, in a world where Serra doesn't reign supreme, she does compare unfavorably. She was a very strong card in Avycyn Restored limited... but that's because there was so little removal, that a 5/5 vigilant flyer could run the game.
Also, they bummed the flavor on Archangel....its kinda weaksauce :(
I've never considered Archangel to be a good card, in Limited or out; for the last 15 some years. Not while Serra Angel exists.
The Summoner is definitely backbreaking. Not just 10 power for 7 mana, but spread over 4 bodies to mostly negate removal spells. Still, I've thought of Archangel as being powerful in Limited, if overpriced. (Now that I think about it, it's definitely worse than Serra Angel.) In retrospect, this is fine.
I don't know if it's wise to compare creatures to Archangel. That card was only reprinted because it was cute, not because it would define the format. Innistrad's Archangel has a star rating of 3.04, which isn't terrible, but isn't terribly exciting, either.
I know Trostani's Summoner is technically a two-color card, but it shows to me that Wizards is willing to push the envelope on the occasional uncommon. That's 10 power worth of creatures for 7. The star rating is 4.06.
At uncommon, compare this to Archangel (which was rare until Avacyn Restored). This is still mostly better, since it's bigger and potentially unblockable. I would have left it at 5/5.
Moved to uncommon, +1/+1.
Moved to common to swap with Image of the Godess.
hmhmm, let me see if I can find an uncommon or a rare to bump down and I'll be able to bump this up then.
But if it's "not much", then it shouldn't be 5/5.
Why do you want this card to be common? Large flyers just aren't suitable for common. Remember that Air Elemental was a bomb in some draft formats. It seems a particularly odd choice given that you're intentionally keeping the power level of the rest of the set on the low side. Having common be awash with 5/5 flyers would do very strange things to Limited.
An avatar, doesn't mean it is the actual God/goddess, just a physical form of some of its power. In this case, not much.
If it's the avatar of a goddess, shouldn't it be rare? I think you're running up against the fundamental problem that the avatar of a goddess just isn't a suitable concept for a common card.
This is beggening to feel less like the avatar of a godess (planeswalker) and more of just a generic 3/3 white flyer...back to 5/5
For the record, the most bizarre thing about this card to me is that it's a common Avatar. That's just weird.
I think V probably meant the mana cost...
Down to 1W it is then.
Hits the "Kinda fiddly for common" problem, but now at least the power concerns are mostly gone. You, uh, probably want to reduce the cost a bit since you reduced the power so much.
3/3 it is?