[Val] Valhar, the Dying Plane: Recent Activity
| [Val] Valhar, the Dying Plane: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics | Creative/World Building | Story | Draft Archetypes | Skeleton |
Recent updates to [Val] Valhar, the Dying Plane: (Generated at 2026-03-29 14:39:56)
Satyrs and their destructive revelry seem like they could add a very particular tone to red in this set.
fixed typo
Published as mtgnexus Card of the Day 2019-09-18.
Published as mtgnexus Card of the Day 2019-08-23.
was:
> Cumulative upkeep
(At the beginning of your upkeep, put an age counter on this permanent, then sacrifice it unless you pay its upkeep cost for each age counter on it.) 
mana rather than pay its cumulative upkeep cost.
As long as ~ is enchanted, you may pay
I wonder whether there is a neat combo with the second ability.
rarity: common >> uncommon
rarity: common >> uncommon
It's probably worth mentioning Kor Skyfisher. For what it's worth, I think the Skyfisher is one of the best white commons out there, so I don't think it's unreasonable to cost it a full
more.
That said, the card is already worse than the Skyfisher in two ways (Skyfisher can return any permanent) so I'd include the "another creature" clause. It at least gives you a reason to play this over Fisher in some decks (decks that are low on non-land permanents that is.)
The stats of this are chosen to reflect blue common fliers with a drawback like Scrapskin Drake and Hinterland Drake. It is also a direct reference to Shrieking Drake.
If I make it all upside I would hence adjust the stats.
I probably post-pone the decision until playtesting (which will likely tell me 90% of my ideas still are bad).
I think flickering is a good idea and will serve this set well. Since the trick here is not to care about timing, I'll probably replace this spell with such an effect once I reach that stage of design.
I think flickering would work better for these particular purposes as it removes the need to cast the card again.
or "you may"?
Source
"another creature"?
Too much life gain ATM. Could be token creation.
Source
Source
Vampire Rogue >> Zombie Rogue
Also: Decomposing Ghoul from Source
Source
Too similar to Ravenous Ghoul right now.
Source
Too similar to Magmacore Elemental right now.
Oooh, fiddly. As worded, yes, it keeps accumulating then replaces that count by 0. Seems like it would be better if it reset.
Or maybe if enchanting it just erases the upkeep forever?
It also doesn't seem like an interesting enough card to use this mechanic on. But it's already flyspeck, so there really isn't room for more!
So howabout the simpler, though similar "Non culmulative upkeep is really freaking huge, or be enchanted" to make you cast then enchant something big.
This is definitely an uncommon, simply because it's an undercosted beater that you probably don't want multiples of, with a boatload of text to boot. I think the hardest part about the set will be finding non-cumulative upkeep cards for your creatures, since a "cumulative upkeep deck", almost by definition, sounds like a nightmare to play and keep track of. I feel like cumulative upkeep would be better served as role-players for certain archetypes, rather than be an archetype all by itself.
And yeah, @jmgariepy, it would be six, since you would still put the age counters on it. The wording could change to "As long as ~ is enchanted, it can't have counters placed on it.", so you'd still have to pay
each turn for the Unholy Strength, but it'd always be 
until it's not enchanted anymore.
Round One: Haraka Fugitive.
.
.
Round Two Upkeep: Pay
Round Two main step: Enchant Haraka Fugitive with Unholy Strength.
Round Three Upkeep: Pay
Skip to your opponent's Round Six: Demystify Unholy Strength.
It's now your upkeep round 7. How much do you pay for Haraka Fugitive's upkeep to keep it on the battlefield? I'm pretty sure the answer is
. But I'm sure a lot of new players would say 
or maybe 
. For me, it doesn't sound like common is available for this mechanic..
I agree with the comments on the source in that this should be of higher impact. Also, I feel that second ability is a bit complexy for a common. All in all, the card is looking like too much effort for too little gain.
Make it a big beat stick with a high upkeep cost (at uncommon+ rarity?) or something to make the whole shenanigan it's suggesting more lucrative of a choice.
Source
Also: Source
Source
Source
v.2.0
Interesting commenty by Kajar:
Source