HOME | DD
Noloter — Ursula [MTG fan card]
Published: 2010-07-23 17:44:33 +0000 UTC; Views: 4711; Favourites: 16; Downloads: 374
Redirect to original
Description
This is my fourth fake MTG card. I made it using a software named "Magic Set Editor 2". I think Disney villains make a great subject for MTG cards.Ursula, the infamous Disney villain, is one of my favourite villains since ever. She's vengeful, she's cunning, she's treacherous and she's very, very persuasive! XD
Her card abilities recall her oringinal powers: she's an aquatic being, so she needs water to move properly (that's why she can't attack if opponent has no Island cards); she can help you achieving your goal but you have to pay highly 'cause dealing with her is like dealing with Devil.
I hope you like it ^^
NOTE: I totally re-edited the previous version of this card by making a new (and better, I hope) one.
Check my other fake MTG cards:
Maleficent/Maleficent, Dark Dragon [link]
Jafar, Grand Vizier/Jafar, Giant Cobra [link]
Ursula, the Sea Witch [link]
Jafar, Omnipotent Djinn [link]
Chernabog [link]
Blue Fairy's Reward [link]
Maleficent's Gift [link]
Jafar's Persuasiveness [link]
Dealing with the Sea Witch [link]
Merryweather's Gift [link]
Prince Charming's Kiss [link]
Lord Voldemort [link]
Avada Kedavra [link]
Mad Madam Mim [link]
[All copyrights are properties of their owners. Ursula belongs to The Walt Disney Corporation. MTG belongs to Wizards of the Coast Inc.]
Related content
Comments: 20
ooohhh so broken, she's stronger than any dijinn card. I think to make it fair she need the requirement that an opponent need to have a basic island to activate her second ability. or maybe exile the top card of your library until you finally get the named cards, and even then it's still broken
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
None seems to be ok with this card: some people said it was lame so I gave it a better ability, then some other people said it was op so I underpowered it, and so on...I'm a bit confused now
Thanks for commenting, anyway
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Hmmm, I do like the novelty of the mechanics of this card, but honestly, I think it is a BIG gamble for little results. Have you actually tried out her ability virtually? Like actually taken a deck and randomly tried to find a named card? If you did, how often have you found the card your looking for? It seems like it wouldn't happen often enough for anyone to even bother with the risk. Most cards with risk are 50/50 at worst, not like 1 in 20 or worse. Also, since you can't name a land card, you will often be dumping your own lands, since they will often turn up, something that even Graveyard Recursion decks don't really like.
Honestly, it might be more sound to have her with a kind of Tutor Effect, like paying for Vampiric Tutor.
Maybe "2UB, T, Pay 2 life: Search your library for a card, then shuffle your library and put that card on top of it." could fit her better.
I do know if you don't like it, I've just got a good ability for a card of my own.
Yes, there is the inherent risk of making a deal with Ursula, and the consequences of failure are steep, but her odds are so risky, only a fool would take the chance. Better to just pay a price and get a guaranteed result.
An important rule of thumb if you want to make good fake cards is that substance should take precedent over flavour, to sacrifice the former over the latter makes for very poorly designed cards. Players are looking for how good the card is first, and what it's flavour is second.
Again, please don't take any of this as an insult, I'm trying to give my own options on what could make this card better.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm not offended. If I didn't want people to criticise me I wouldn't post my works here, would I?
I was thinking of two different possible edits for that line:
[1] "UB, T: Name a nonland card, then reveal the top card of your library. If that card is the named card, add it to your hand. Otherwise you lose 2 life and put that card into your graveyard".
[2] "UB, T: Search your library for a card. You can play that card without paying its mana cost. If you do, you lose life equal to its converted mana cost (X counts as 0). Shuffle your library afterwars."
In either ways it's like signing a pact with Ursula: in [1] you take a risk by asking her to help you (it possible you don't like what she gives you - i.e. the revealed card); in [2] she gives you what you want but you have to pay, and the higher is your request, the higher is the price you have to pay.
What do you think?
N.B.1 Clearly in [2] you have to reshuffle the selected card into your library if you don't want to play it, you can't add it to your hand.
N.B.2 In [1] you can get some benefits by putting cards into your graveyard, we all know there're very many decks based on graveyards.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes, fair enough.
Lets see, either one of those is a much better way of dealing with Ursula. Taking out the Random Element makes it much easier to do.
The only thing is 1 is essentially just a complicated way of drawing a card, since you are just taking it off off the top of your library, and it's a complicated and expensive way of drawing a card. You can manipulate what you draw with Scry or other such effects, but it's still complicated for just a card draw. If you want to use her to mill cards, get them into your graveyard for later use, there are easier ways.
An alternative that might work better is to Look at the top 5 cards of your library, picking one non-land card from among them, and putting the other non-land cards in your graveyard, putting the land cards back on top or bottom.
2 on the other hand, is very interesting. Paying life to tutor, and pay for, a specific card, is very interesting. You should qualify that it should be a non-land card, so you can't just tutor land cards for free. Tutoring 0 cost cards on the other hand, could also be problematic, but I think it is less of a big deal of getting a free land each turn. I'm personally more partial to this version of Ursula, and suddenly she is a much more interesting card to try to play with, and is a very powerful, worthy to represent Ursula.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes, you're right, I don't want players tutoring lands that way; you can play only nonland cards, I should have made that clear
Anyway, don't you think [2] is a bit overpowered? I mean, I know you have to pay life for playing selected card, but paying just two CMC to activate this ability seems a bit too "cheap" to me (if you get what I mean)...What if you have to sacrify/remove permanents instead of losing life? After all, Ursula always asks you something back when she helps you...I don't know...It should be risky dealing with Ursula...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah, you can remove lands from the mix.
Hmm, maybe, but perhaps that's for the best. If you think it's too over powered, up the activation cost. Sacrificing a Permanent is a fair activation cost, but NOT one per CMC, that's WAY too much and would just be too high a cost to see play. I'd make it a static one or 2. I'd still pay life per CMC if you want to play the card for free.
Honestly though, If I wanted to play this card, I would play it the way you described it, no Permanent Sacrifice required, loading it to my Set Editor that way before I load it on to something like Cockatrice for play.
If you aren't going to use 2, don't use 1 the way it is, 1, while better than it being random, is still weak. Use the Method I recommended where you look at 5 cards instead of 1, keeping the named card and dumping the other non-land cards in your graveyard. I'd eliminate loosing life if you are wrong, though paying life could be an automatic cost, right or wrong.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
What if you have to sacrifice a permanent (or just discard a random card from your hand) in order to get the card you want?
i.e.:
[a] "UB, T: Sacrifice a (random?) permanent. Search your library for a nonland card and play it without paying its mana cost. Shuffle your library afterwards. Play this ability only each time you could cast a sorcery."
[b] "UB, T: Discard a random card from your hand. Search your library for a card and add it to your hand. Shuffle your library afterwards."
I think the "random" thing fits to Ursula, as you never know what she could ask you back...
Anyway, it's funny how many possibilities offers a character like this
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hmm, well either one could work I guess, but I'm still fond of the Sacrificing life for A, but a single random permanent might be a better cost than a lot of life, but you could be sacrificing a land, 1/1 creature or even a token in order to get out a huge creature or powerful Sorcery.
B works at least, as you are tutoring a card at only the cost of a single card from your hand. Even at random, you would probably only be using it when you value the card you are tutoring for over the best card in your hand, so even if your best card is dumped, you have a better card in your hand.
But yeah, I agree, she does have a lot of possibilities, and the ideas you don't use gives me ideas for cards.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hey, don't steal my ideas!! 
(kidding)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, what I mostly meant was the ideas I came up for you myself, the ones you aren't using.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hi, I edited it the way you suggested, what do you think now?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah, I think this might be more or less balanced and interesting now.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And what about my new cards? I'd like to know your opinion about them, if you don't mind
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Right, okay, I'll get on him. I just didn't have the time at the moment, but I saw them and will leave a few comments on them.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Card stays true with the character. But I can assure you I would not be playing this creature. To great of a risk of loosing cards. Unless you are sure of what you will pull, or have a way to retrieve exiled cards, it would be a tough card to use. Maybe instead of putting it into your hand, you put it into play without paying it's mana cost? And probably lose just 1 life instead of 3. You are already exiling a card. That sucks enough as it is.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks for commenting.
You know, I always fear to owerpower my fake MTG cards, perhaps 'cause MTG cards were less too powerfull when I was a player (i.e. a few years ago) than they're now; now I think I'm starting to think I've underpowered them...which is bad as well
What if it just said: "Otherwise you lose 3 life"? Or, may be: "Otherwise you lose 2 life and put that card into your graveyard"? I ment it to be a quite risky card...What do you think?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Either of those would be good. Putting her in a Necro deck would be good if you went with the 2nd one, that way you are losing life (as black cards tend to do) but still use the common black mana theme of pulling from graveyard. It seems like a good fit.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hi, I edited Ursula's activated ability the way we discussed; what do you think?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Much better I must say. Seems fair, considering some higher powered cards can really tank your Life.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0