Misc Design for future sets.: Recent Activity

Misc Design for future sets.: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity

Mechanics

Recent updates to Misc Design for future sets.: (Generated at 2025-08-18 13:38:55)

• 2014-08-01 11:42:03: Vonmarcus edited Fighting Flock
• 2014-08-01 11:41:21: Vonmarcus commented on Fighting Flock

  @ keflexxx That is true I do what some the p/t totals of the tokens to equal that of the "parent" creature. So I'll be changing the tokens to 2/2's with flying and shroud and upping the power of the card from 4 to 8.

• 2014-08-01 04:18:37: keflexxx commented on Fighting Flock

  WotC regularly sacrifice flavour for ease of understanding, and I think that would be a good decision here. Possible fix:

  When ~ dies, put two 2/2 blue and white Bird creature tokens with flying and shroud onto the battlefield.

  Weakens the birds when they die & keeps continuity (2/2 birds are an established token)

• 2014-08-01 01:30:32: Vonmarcus created the card Secluded Warren
• 2014-07-31 11:22:13: Vonmarcus commented on Fighting Flock

  The idea behind giving them reach was to give the flavor of being injured but still fighting you, which is also why when the flock splits I made them 2/1 instead of 1/2, you know they're angry and such.

• 2014-07-31 08:05:13: Vitenka commented on Fighting Flock

  An upgrade on Ageless Sentinels? I can see it - pricey though.

• 2014-07-31 06:24:51: dude1818 commented on Fighting Flock

  The bird tokens should really have flying and not reach. I'd recommend the tokens be 1/2s, since the flock is shown as having split apart. A 4/8 to 4 2/1s looks weird.

• 2014-07-31 01:52:39: Vonmarcus edited Fighting Flock
• 2014-07-30 21:11:55: Vonmarcus created the card Card36968
• 2014-07-30 20:41:13: Vonmarcus edited Fighting Flock
• 2014-07-29 11:10:57: Vonmarcus edited cool name here.
• 2014-07-29 11:10:44: Vonmarcus commented on cool name here.

  ok cool.

• 2014-07-29 09:30:28: Alex commented on cool name here.

  I agree you could remove "Legendary" (that'd help the cramping on the type line as well). Given the comparison to Dryad Arbor I don't think you need to increase the life cost.

• 2014-07-28 16:43:18: Vonmarcus commented on cool name here.

  I'm not sure that this still feels legendary as a 1/1 given that there are many non-combat ways to kill this. I may return this to a 2/1 and up the life payment to 5. Or I may change the life cost to 3-4 and remove the legendary type.

  Thoughts?

• 2014-07-28 12:21:44: Vonmarcus created the card Fighting Flock
• 2014-07-28 09:59:31: Alex commented on cool name here.

  Looks better. An interesting take on Dryad Arbor. A lot harder to block but just as killable, and you can't block on it.

• 2014-07-28 00:52:55: Vonmarcus created the card Mana Leach Mantle
• 2014-07-27 19:26:51: Vonmarcus edited Card36720
• 2014-07-27 12:12:18: Vonmarcus edited cool name here.
• 2014-07-27 12:12:02: Vonmarcus commented on cool name here.

  I'll change the type.( I seemed to have missed the creature type making on my other recent land creatures.) I was not around during Tempest but I've got a good many cards from it. From my playing in casual groups over the years whenever a deck with a good amount of shadow in it started making its rounds people would adjust to cope and much of what I saw was tweaking decks to run enough shadow to handle the aggressor then playing the deck per normal. But again that's just what I've seen.

  Also as for power level how is this??

• 2014-07-27 12:06:39: Vonmarcus edited Roaming Rubble
• 2014-07-27 12:06:29: Vonmarcus edited Forgotten Dryad
• 2014-07-27 10:29:06: jmgariepy commented on cool name here.

  Edit: the following is not intended to reflect the power level of this card in any way, and is only posited as a curious question. Don't read too much into it.

  I wonder... were you around during Tempest, Vonmarcus? Because I don't ever remember anyone ever blocking with a Shadow creature. To me, Shadow seemed roughly unblockable, since two dedicated shadow decks never seemed to be paired up against each other, even at the height of the block...

• 2014-07-26 12:30:19: Link commented on cool name here.

  Then it should probably have the creature type.

• 2014-07-26 10:49:28: Vonmarcus edited cool name here.
• 2014-07-26 10:48:57: Vonmarcus commented on cool name here.

  Yes it is meant to be a creature.

• 2014-07-26 02:45:33: Link commented on cool name here.

  Is this meant to be a creature?

• 2014-07-26 01:06:43: Vonmarcus commented on cool name here.

  I know that most people don't like shadow (due mainly to not having an answer for it.), but I feel that it's just under something with un-blockable and just above something with intimidate. I think that shadow in the right setting could work. It would just have to be done better than last round. I mean look at slivers. they handle them a little better each time they've come around.

• 2014-07-25 18:02:55: Vitenka commented on cool name here.

  Well, ten turns later; unless you've got pump stuff.

  But yeah, just a bit too good. Please don't bring back shadow. Ever.

• 2014-07-25 16:32:09: Vonmarcus commented on cool name here.

  Ok all very good points. Also this card would be in a set were Shadow plays a heavy part. So in the intended environment it won't be unblockable for long. I'll consider a few changes though.