Flavor Factory: Recent Activity
| Flavor Factory: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
Recent updates to Flavor Factory: (Generated at 2025-09-03 13:22:49)
Page 1 - Older activity
Page 1 - Older activity
So when did the Multiverse update to use only the legendary creature's name and not the card when? I know that's how card's are printed now, but I just didn't notice that formatting being appear here before.
See Taigam, Ambitious Traitor. So I incorporated rebound into the Dragons of Tarkir timeline of Taigam. That had a great Ojutai feel, but it didn't give the feel of a position of power. Since the hand has often been representative of the mind I figured a boosting of Taigam's p/t would be a very Ojutai way of showing strength through knowledge. I chose doublestrike because it's been shown in Ojutai and felt like a very aggressive monk fighting technique. The six mana required to get the p/t boost and doublestrike represents the diligence it took to get Taigam that far.
So a lot of people wanted Taigam to get a card. This attempt is obvious Taigam during Khans of Tarkir. With Sidisi, Brood Tyrant as the Khan though I felt Taigam needed to be rare and not fall too much into Sidisi's territory. As I believe Sidisi is pretty lackluster I had to downplay Taigam's ability limiting it to one card to the graveyard. I felt the ability represents tax collection, a task Taigam was depicted doing in at least one story. I contemplated making reference to Taigam's previous Jeskai training that we'd see in his Ojutai version for Dragons of Tarkir. Would you fellow card creators prefer to see Taigam's Jeskai training on his Sultai card?
No. Fight is only defined as involving exactly two creatures. Otherwise, Polukranos was going to have that ability. I do think it would be more aesthetic if it dealt damage equal to its power, not just a fixed number that happened to be equal to its printed power. It's a subtle difference, but all I see right now is a direct damage ETB effect, not a pseudo-fight. Plus that way you can "abuse" it with stuff like graft.
Can't you reword the second ability to fight any number of creatures?
Fixed some typos; first ability was 3 damage and targeted; Starting loyalty was 2
Well, I do like the changes in any case. :)
Honestly I don't really care about this card that much, which is why I didn't think about it too deeply.
The problem is it doesn't change a lot of cases where it would make it unprofitable to block. Only:
I mean, I don't want plus abilities to be oppressive, and I understand that it applies to each blocked creature, and that the life gain is something. But maybe the problem is you're trying to fit too much. "When target creature blocks this turn, CARDNAME deals 3 damage to it." means a lot more, and is shorter and has less things going around.
About the 0, I like what it's doing and how it's distanced itself from the whole reanimating thing. But then again having one ability discourage blocking and the other giving evasion is a little redundant and just a case of comparing colors and/or deciding if you want to go up loyalty, instead of the abilities feeling diverse.
The individual ideas are good, but the card is really all over the place. If you don't like it being so wordy, maybe focus on a few of those ideas and rethink the card as a whole package.
Middle ability no longer mirrors legendary version
The first ability does a bit more than that, especially since you're gaining life. It's basically giving all of your blocked creatures +1/+0, which can definitely change the combat math. Then you're gaining life on top of that.
I agree that the second two abilities are repetitive.
You can cut a few words, changing the emblem's "that shares a converted mana cost with that creature" to "with the same converted mana cost", since you're already referring to nothing else in that ability.
I feel this tries to replicate the original card way too much. It becomes a little repetitive. I like that the first ability discourages blocking in an honest, you-know-the-implications way, but other than outright disallowing 1-toughness creatures, it doesn't help a lot. I'd prefer if it did 2 or even 3, and maybe just to one blocker. That way your opponent really feels there is a penalty involved. I would also probably change the numbers a bit. For example, the second ability is pretty bonkers to cost 0, and the starting loyalty doesn't need to be that low IMO.
I made this for a forum game. I thought I might as well post it here. It's unfortunately wordy, though, as are many of my designs lately.
Vorthoi*
Oh, wow. Yes, that's something that definitely should not happen for all sorts of reasons.
You can also be super clever by using Ugin's +1 on himself, then leaving him as a creature for your opponent's combat phase so that he can't be attacked.
That's not the clever bit. The clever bit is next turn, using the +1 on itself, then using morph to turn it face-up again and put three more counters on it.
I don't understand. How is turning it face-up and using its first ability so that it ends up with 4 loyalty different than just casting it normally and using the first ability so that it ends up with 4 loyalty?
Hah. Assuming the first speaker has two different Lightning Bolts, yes. One of the casualties of the hacky planeswalker-damage rule.
The use of the first ability as a +4 is weird and cool. I think. I don't know if it might confuse people that he can't do it multiple times in a turn.
The second ability is awesome in any artifact-themed deck. Terrifying in a Kozilek EDH deck, but plenty good enough in a Kurkesh or Daretti deck.
This is a completely legal sequence of events:
"Bolt your face down guy."
"Surprise! Illegal target."
"Now that it's face up, Bolt Ugin."
"Bleh, it dies."
I made the morph cost as high add it is because he can gain 4 loyalty in one turn by turning himself face down and then morphing face-up. I did consider letting the morph cost, but only testing could say which option is better. The card draw ability should cost loyalty, you're right.
The current ultimate is neat, I think, and very powerful. I just don't know that it really fits Ugin.
Funny how the morph thing works. "As Ugin is turned face-up, put three loyalty counters on it." should be cleaner, but planeswalkers always have this space issue when using offbeat abilities. I guess if you really wanted to you could always make a rule that planeswalkers are put as many loyalty counters as their printed card says as they are turned face-up. It wouldn't be immediately obvious, but people would agree that the card wouldn't make sense otherwise. Worth a shot maybe.
The first two abilities are amazing design, although I agree that the ultimate is less inspired. We don't know a lot about Ugin anyway, but playing up its affinity for colorlessness is a great idea.
But I would change some numbers. I'd be tempted to change the first ability to +2 (compare to Nissa, Worldwaker), but even if just chump blocking with lands, it's dangerous that it goes up so quickly while defending itself, so +1 is fine. The second ability, however, though a bit meh if you just try to use face-down things, is pretty bonkers when playing with artifacts, especially if Ugin is not immediately threatened or you can defend it at least for a short time. I feel it needs to be a -1. Depending on what the ultimate is, it could be just -6. It's not that good if people never get to it (as with Nissa Revane). Finally, I would try to lower the morph cost, but maybe just to
since getting a discount for a planeswalker that your opponent didn't know you had / can't threaten when you want to use it is very powerful.
I ran out of inspiration for the ultimate. I also considered "Colorless creatures you control "get +3/+3 and have flying and hexproof," but that excited me even less. Honestly I don't know that much about Ugin.
I don't like the first ability too much. For one, it seems very narrow, but it's also incredibly good when it is (Do they need to be two? Does it need to be a plus ability?). It would also be cooler if it was tied to artifacts in general so that it's easier to build around (and relates better to the rest of the card).
I like the second ability a lot in flavor and function, although -1 is absolutely too strong, and it may feel a little color pie-breaking in that undoing the exiling takes a ton of effort. It's possible that it's frustrating to play against. You could only target a certain subset (like Suspension Field), or even just weaken the creature instead of exiling it (turning it 1/1?). But if it's too wordy, it's pretty cool as it is.
The -5 is overwhelmingly boring, although I understand the synergy. I'd suggest an emblem, but it may feel too much like Elspeth, Knight-Errant.
In general, though, any Lithomancer that includes putting creatures inside hedrons is a cool design. :)
Very true. I really expected her to reference the hedrons, though.