bravelion83, I agree with your proposed timeline. Cutting the third round might just be the ticket.
As far as I'm concerned, you're free to try that in September and see how it turns out. Just make sure to say that beforehand at the beginning of round 1 and possibly repeat it in each round's OP, so that people know it before submitting their card.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MCC - Winner (6): Oct 2014, Apr Nov 2017, Jan 2018, Apr Jun 2019 || Host (15): Dec 2014, Apr Jul Aug Dec 2015, Mar Jul Aug Oct 2016, Feb Jul 2017, Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) || Judge (34): every month from Nov 2014 to Nov 2016 except Oct 2015, every month from Feb to Jul 2017 except Apr 2017, then Oct 2017, May Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) CCL - Winner (3): Jul 2016 (tied with Flatline), May 2017, Jul 2019 (last one here) || Host (5): Feb 2015, Mar Apr May Jun 2016 DCC - Winner (1): Mar 2015 (tied with Piar) || Host (3): May Oct 2015, Jan 2016
• The two public custom sets I've been part a part of the design team for: "Brotherhood of Ormos" - Blog post with all info - set thread - design skeleton / card list || "Extinctia: Homo Evanuit" - Blog post with all info - set thread - card list spreadsheet
• "The Lion's Lair", my article series about MTG and custom card design in particular. Latest article here. Here is the article index.Rather outdated by now, and based on the old MCC rubric, but I'm leaving this here for anybody that might be interested anyway.
• My only public attempt at being a writer: the story of my Leonin custom planeswalker Jeff Lionheart. (I have a very big one that I'm working on right now but that's private for now, and I don't know if I will ever actually publish it, and I also have ideas for multiple future ones, including one where I'm going to reprise Jeff.)
Regarding August Round 4: A mechanic called evolve? You mean like, Evolve, that mechanic from Gatecrash that is already a thing? (See for example Adaptive Snapjaw.)
Are we just going to ignore that and play alternate universe?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Multiple instances of lifelink on the same creature are redundant.
Multiple instances of lifelink on the same creature are redundant.
Multiple instances of lifelink on the same creature are redundant.
—Eli Shiffrin, Rules Manager, on a design stacking lifelink instances
Regarding August Round 4: A mechanic called evolve? You mean like, Evolve, that mechanic from Gatecrash that is already a thing? (See for example Adaptive Snapjaw.)
Are we just going to ignore that and play alternate universe?
There's some really good stuff being posted thus far in the 1st round of September.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
(22 Total) - October 2014; December 2014; January 2015; April 2015; June 2015; August 2015; September 2015; November 2015; December 2015(T); January 2016; March 2016(T); April 2016; June 2016; October 2016; December 2016(T); February 2017; April 2017; December 2017; November 2018(T); January 2019; April 2019; June 2019
(8 Total) - May 2015; May 2016; June 2016; August 2016; October 2016; December 2016; October 2017; May 2019
(7 Total) - September 2015; October 2015; January 2016; March 2016; April 2016; July 2016(T); March 2019(T)
Sorry for the double post but.....The Hall of Fame for the CCL has been updated for the first time since December of 2013. For those that don't know, the HoF is a list of CCL winners and hosts by month. The HoF can be found in the OP of this thread. Here's the link....
(22 Total) - October 2014; December 2014; January 2015; April 2015; June 2015; August 2015; September 2015; November 2015; December 2015(T); January 2016; March 2016(T); April 2016; June 2016; October 2016; December 2016(T); February 2017; April 2017; December 2017; November 2018(T); January 2019; April 2019; June 2019
(8 Total) - May 2015; May 2016; June 2016; August 2016; October 2016; December 2016; October 2017; May 2019
(7 Total) - September 2015; October 2015; January 2016; March 2016; April 2016; July 2016(T); March 2019(T)
Holy Thopters, so tough the competition in CCL round 1. Everything is good. I think flavor is the best or most important criteria. The challenge is flavor and I think I should judge that then the others such balance second
In short very hard to critique as everyone did good. Flavor is what will break the tie
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MtG is where you can hate white players or black players, and still not be racist.
I don't really see the student part, since I'm getting more of an "assistant" vibe from this card (I mean, Snapcaster Mage didn't let you search for an instant or sorcery, after all). I personally would have made it a 1-mana 1/1 that lets you flashback instants or sorceries with CMC 1 or less to give it more of an apprentice feel.
I'm not sure how this card can't be seen as a student. An apprentice (or page) often acts as an assistant or "errand boy" boy in exchange for receiving training from his master. Here's a couple of quotes from Wikipedia about the traditional role of a page..."A young boy served as a page for about seven years, running messages, serving, cleaning clothing and weapons, and learning the basics of combat"...."Personal service of this nature was not considered as demeaning, in the context of shared noble status by page and lord. It was seen rather as a form of education in return for labour"....."In return for his work, the page would receive training..." My card is acting as an errand boy for his master (fetching a spell for him in this instance) in return for an education.
Edit: BTW, page and apprentice are basically the same thing. The card you gave first to is an apprentice. Is the main problem you have with it the fact that it references Snapcaster Mage, but isn't just a lesser version of the card? The two cards still clearly interact in a student - master sort of way. Maybe I should have made the flavor text something like this instead.... "I would like to go over that spell again my lord. Please allow me to fetch the necessary components for you."
Edit2: BTW, I really like your entry for round 1 a lot. I didn't get to judge it, but if I did, I would've had a really hard time choosing between it and Legend's card for 1st. Not that that has anything to do with the rest of this post, but I figured as long as I hassling you, I might as well give some positive feedback as well.
(22 Total) - October 2014; December 2014; January 2015; April 2015; June 2015; August 2015; September 2015; November 2015; December 2015(T); January 2016; March 2016(T); April 2016; June 2016; October 2016; December 2016(T); February 2017; April 2017; December 2017; November 2018(T); January 2019; April 2019; June 2019
(8 Total) - May 2015; May 2016; June 2016; August 2016; October 2016; December 2016; October 2017; May 2019
(7 Total) - September 2015; October 2015; January 2016; March 2016; April 2016; July 2016(T); March 2019(T)
Gabriele, the Heaven-Raiser 3WWW
Legendary Creature - Angel (Mythic)
Flying
When Gabriele enters the battlefield, create five 1/1 White Spirit creature tokens with flying. Then, target opponent create five 1/1 black Sp
I am super appreciative of all the work proudawesome has been putting into the CCL lately, and I am totally on board with most of the changes he or she has adopted, but.....Am I the only one that's not a big fan of the hidden finals poll? I like to be able to follow along with who's winning. With the way it is now, once you've voted, there is literally nothing to follow in the contest for about two weeks.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
(22 Total) - October 2014; December 2014; January 2015; April 2015; June 2015; August 2015; September 2015; November 2015; December 2015(T); January 2016; March 2016(T); April 2016; June 2016; October 2016; December 2016(T); February 2017; April 2017; December 2017; November 2018(T); January 2019; April 2019; June 2019
(8 Total) - May 2015; May 2016; June 2016; August 2016; October 2016; December 2016; October 2017; May 2019
(7 Total) - September 2015; October 2015; January 2016; March 2016; April 2016; July 2016(T); March 2019(T)
It is, and I don't watch commercials. If other people like it, I have no problem with that. I just wanted to express my opinion in case there were others that felt the same way. No big whoop either way.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
(22 Total) - October 2014; December 2014; January 2015; April 2015; June 2015; August 2015; September 2015; November 2015; December 2015(T); January 2016; March 2016(T); April 2016; June 2016; October 2016; December 2016(T); February 2017; April 2017; December 2017; November 2018(T); January 2019; April 2019; June 2019
(8 Total) - May 2015; May 2016; June 2016; August 2016; October 2016; December 2016; October 2017; May 2019
(7 Total) - September 2015; October 2015; January 2016; March 2016; April 2016; July 2016(T); March 2019(T)
I am super appreciative of all the work proudawesome has been putting into the CCL lately, and I am totally on board with most of the changes he or she has adopted, but.....Am I the only one that's not a big fan of the hidden finals poll? I like to be able to follow along with who's winning. With the way it is now, once you've voted, there is literally nothing to follow in the contest for about two weeks.
Thanks for the endorsement, Flatline
When it came to the poll, I figured having the results visible could easily influence the voting one way or another. That being said, if people do not like that, I can revert it.
Also, I am going to absolutely close the poll at the end of Round 2, next Friday.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Create your own cards on MTG.Design
( ancestral on Custom Magic Discord server )
( mproud on reddit )
I don't like the hidden results either (and I do not watch commercials either), but I totally understand the reasons behind. I think the best way would be you can see the results but only after you voted, so that you have to actually vote to see the results. Like the way polls work on Twitter. I don't know if there is a way to do that here, but I think that would be the best choice.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MCC - Winner (6): Oct 2014, Apr Nov 2017, Jan 2018, Apr Jun 2019 || Host (15): Dec 2014, Apr Jul Aug Dec 2015, Mar Jul Aug Oct 2016, Feb Jul 2017, Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) || Judge (34): every month from Nov 2014 to Nov 2016 except Oct 2015, every month from Feb to Jul 2017 except Apr 2017, then Oct 2017, May Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) CCL - Winner (3): Jul 2016 (tied with Flatline), May 2017, Jul 2019 (last one here) || Host (5): Feb 2015, Mar Apr May Jun 2016 DCC - Winner (1): Mar 2015 (tied with Piar) || Host (3): May Oct 2015, Jan 2016
• The two public custom sets I've been part a part of the design team for: "Brotherhood of Ormos" - Blog post with all info - set thread - design skeleton / card list || "Extinctia: Homo Evanuit" - Blog post with all info - set thread - card list spreadsheet
• "The Lion's Lair", my article series about MTG and custom card design in particular. Latest article here. Here is the article index.Rather outdated by now, and based on the old MCC rubric, but I'm leaving this here for anybody that might be interested anyway.
• My only public attempt at being a writer: the story of my Leonin custom planeswalker Jeff Lionheart. (I have a very big one that I'm working on right now but that's private for now, and I don't know if I will ever actually publish it, and I also have ideas for multiple future ones, including one where I'm going to reprise Jeff.)
When it came to the poll, I figured having the results visible could easily influence the voting one way or another. That being said, if people do not like that, I can revert it.
Definitely don't change what you're doing on my account, after all, July had more people vote in the poll than I've seen in long time, so you must be doing something right. I think it also might have helped that I was advertising the CCL finals poll as the host of the DCC that month (I included a link to the poll in the "Note of the Day" section of the DCC thread). TBH, I think cross-contest promotion is a good idea, and something we should think about doing more of in these threads. As a matter of fact, I have an idea for hosting the MCC that revolves around trying to draw new players from the various card creation games in these threads (like the ABC game and the "I like you" game for example). I would then try to advertise in those games for the upcoming MCC I am referring to. Now I just need to convince myself to actually host one. Anyway, keep up the good work proudawesome! For a while there we were counting on bravelion to keep both the CCL and the MCC going single-handed (which he did an exemplary job of BTW).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
(22 Total) - October 2014; December 2014; January 2015; April 2015; June 2015; August 2015; September 2015; November 2015; December 2015(T); January 2016; March 2016(T); April 2016; June 2016; October 2016; December 2016(T); February 2017; April 2017; December 2017; November 2018(T); January 2019; April 2019; June 2019
(8 Total) - May 2015; May 2016; June 2016; August 2016; October 2016; December 2016; October 2017; May 2019
(7 Total) - September 2015; October 2015; January 2016; March 2016; April 2016; July 2016(T); March 2019(T)
I'm really sorry, especially because it's you, but this doesn't meet the challenge. In the clarifications, it's explicitly stated that there had to be a "When this enters the battlefield" triggered ability, which this is not. This is too bad, because I really like how simple, effective and flavorful the card is, even if it has potential memory issues, but I have to consider it out with much regret on my part.
Don't feel bad bravelion, I'm not sure what I was thinking.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
(22 Total) - October 2014; December 2014; January 2015; April 2015; June 2015; August 2015; September 2015; November 2015; December 2015(T); January 2016; March 2016(T); April 2016; June 2016; October 2016; December 2016(T); February 2017; April 2017; December 2017; November 2018(T); January 2019; April 2019; June 2019
(8 Total) - May 2015; May 2016; June 2016; August 2016; October 2016; December 2016; October 2017; May 2019
(7 Total) - September 2015; October 2015; January 2016; March 2016; April 2016; July 2016(T); March 2019(T)
Firebreathing Hydra (Rare) XRG
Creature - Hydra
0/0
Firebreathing Hydra enters the battlefield with X +1/+1 counters on it.
When Firebreathing Hydra enters the battlefield, it deals X damage to target creature or player. Educational Decree 187. All creatures of the hydra genus are forthwith banned from academy grounds.
We've had exchanges before and we both know we disagree about card formatting, it's useless to discuss that again as we both know our opinions on that won't change. The card itself looks fine but it doesn't actually work as the value of X does not get passed to the triggered ability. Monstrosity was an exception and it had to spell it out explicitly in its CR entry just for Polukranos, World Eater to work. It's true that the rules could always change, but as they are, this doesn't work.
I have a hard time believing that you can't see past a little rules innovation (and it is a little) to the point where you consider it unprintable. Since when is innovation so frowned upon in these games? I seriously doubt that you are so close-minded. It seems more like an excuse to punish me for adhering to WotC formatting.
One of the nice things I truly appreciate about the CCL is that it feels a little more relaxed with regards to creating designs and judging when compared to other contests here. Perhaps it’s partly that we often have new folks tasked with judging and rating the cards, so our expectations must be lower; or perhaps it’s people seeing the intent behind the design, the card’s potential; or that they may choose to relate to a card purely at an emotional level. Whatever the case may be, I think the CCL is about having fun and learning as you go, and we should never lose that.
I believe bravelion83 is correct here about the card — but it matters not, as ultimately, it’s up to Legend’s peers to decide whether they like the card or not. If people wish to point this out in the critiques or penalize him/her, that’s their prerogative. That being said, this is a design contest; the focus should be more on the design and less on the development. If it were me judging cards with rules syntax errors, I would choose to overlook it, as I’m after a solid design, as long as it’s not a semantic error (if someone put “target player” but maybe meant to put “target creature or player” I would hold them to the submitted version).
It’s highly advised people hold their peers to the requirements of the round, but there is no prescribed criteria when it comes to CCL critiques, and I think that’s fine.
Firebreathing Hydra (Rare)
XRG
Creature - Hydra
0/0
Firebreathing Hydra enters the battlefield with X +1/+1 counters on it.
When Firebreathing Hydra enters the battlefield, it deals X damage to target creature or player.
Educational Decree 187. All creatures of the hydra genus are forthwith banned from academy grounds.
Okay so in light of this wording incident, how should we word it to reflect its intended effect? (The purpose of this post is to help beginner/notso beginner people (like me) know more about wording.)
So help me know which of these my attempts to word the card properly is considered OK wording.
Quote from Try1 »
Firebreathing Hydra (Rare)
XRG
Creature - Hydra
0/0
Firebreathing Hydra enters the battlefield with X +1/+1 counters on it.
As Firebreathing Hydra enters the battlefield, it deals X damage to target creature or player.
Quote from Try2 »
Firebreathing Hydra (Rare)
XRG
Creature - Hydra
0/0
Firebreathing Hydra enters the battlefield with X +1/+1 counters on it.
When you cast Firebreathing Hydra, it deals X damage to target creature or player.
now on try2 i assume this is functionally the same, right? because when the Hydra is reanimated or blinked or peristed/undyinged, it auto-dies right? so the effect is totally on cast only?
Again, this post is not to grill Legend, but to help me (and others like me) understand a MtG grammar a better.
Also I've been thinking of setting up a wordings help thread. Where people can ask about roper wordings and stuff.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MtG is where you can hate white players or black players, and still not be racist.
I apologize in advance for the length of the post.
In response to the last two posts, I always point out any kind of mistake I see, no matter how small it can be, with the intent to let designers know the mistakes and get better, but in the case of unimportant mistakes and such I then never count them when establishing my top 3 and giving points in the CCL. The problem with Legend's card is that the mistake is functional, and that makes it important to me as it makes the card not work at all. How should it be? Well, why does the ETB ability have to contain the X? That's what causes problems and it's easily removed:
Firebreathing Hydra enters the battlefield with X +1/+1 counters on it.
When Firebreathing Hydra enters the battlefield, it deals damage equal to its power to target creature or player.
Et voila! You have a perfectly working card that is functionally equivalent, as the damage will be equal to the number of counters the creature has anyway (excluding strange corner cases as usual in Magic). Are you worried about effects that might raise its base power and toughness before the ability resolves? Then turn it into this:
Firebreathing Hydra enters the battlefield with X +1/+1 counters on it.
When Firebreathing Hydra enters the battlefield, it deals damage equal to the number of +1/+1 counters on it to target creature or player.
In my opinion the extra words are not worth it, but if you prefer this, it works too. Now, if you want to get really deep, you might be worried about effects that can put additional counters before the ability resolves. Then do this:
Firebreathing Hydra enters the battlefield with X +1/+1 counters on it.
When Firebreathing Hydra enters the battlefield, it deals damage equal to the number of +1/+1 counters on it as it entered the battlefield to target creature or player.
This is really unelegant but it works. The fact is: it took me more time to type all these then to come up with those working version. It would have taken only a few seconds to edit the post and change the wording to make the card work. So why did the designer not do it? I can't believe a person, for as busy as they can be, didn't have a single minute to adjust that in almost one whole week the round was open before the deadline. I can only think they don't know that the card doesn't actually work, so what I do is explaining them the thing so that they can avoid similar mistakes in their future designs. I try to turn that into a learning occasion. This is my intention at least.
As for the proposed versions:
Quote from Try1 »
Firebreathing Hydra enters the battlefield with X +1/+1 counters on it.
As Firebreathing Hydra enters the battlefield, it deals X damage to target creature or player.
This works, but would look confusing to some players ("why does it say 'as'? That's strange..."). It all boils down to how triggered abilities are defined and the consequent functional difference between "as" and "when". I've already talked about it in my "Magic Grammar" articles (part of "The Lion's Lair" series, link in signature), but here it is:
"When" (also "whenever" and "at") defines a triggered ability, that only triggers after the permanent has already entered the battlefield. The sequence is: permanent enters, ability triggers, ability goes on the stack, ability resolves. These three words ("when, whenever, at") are the only ones that define a triggered ability. In other words: an ability that starts with "when", "whenever" or "at" is necessarily a triggered ability, it can't be any other kind of ability, it must be triggered. The reverse is also true: do you want to know if an ability is triggered or not? Just look at its first word: is it one of those three? If yes, then it triggered. If not, it cannot be triggered. There are no exceptions and no ambiguities to this. The negation is also true: if an ability doesn't start with one of these three words, it cannot be a triggered ability. It can be anything but not a triggered ability.
"As" is not either of those three words, so an ability that starts with "as" cannot be triggered, so what it is? It can't be activated either, because an ability must contain a colon to be activated, and there is no colon here. So what it is? It turns out that in the rules abilities starting with "as" are a particular kind of static abilities that modifies the act itself of entering the battlefield. So the sequence is: the permanent spell is resolving (it hasn't entered the battlefield yet), and as part of its resolution the "as" effect (in this case the damage) happens and can't be responded to because it's part of the resolution and you can't do anything while a spell is resolving. A consequence of this is that if you want to prevent the damage you must do so in response to the permanent spell. Once that starts resolving it's too late. I hope you can see the difference.
Quote from Try2 »
Firebreathing Hydra enters the battlefield with X +1/+1 counters on it.
When you cast Firebreathing Hydra, it deals X damage to target creature or player.
In this case we have a triggered ability (starts with "when") that goes on the stack on top of the Hydra and so it will resolve before the Hydra enters and while the Hydra is still on the stack. While the Hydra is on the stack, X is defined, so this works too.
now on try2 i assume this is functionally the same, right? because when the Hydra is reanimated or blinked or peristed/undyinged, it auto-dies right?
This is correct.
so the effect is totally on cast only?
Here you may be making a cause-effect relationship that isn't there. The fact that the Hydra does not get counters when blinked, reanimated, etc... and instanly dies doesn't mean that an ability that starts with "when CARDNAME enters the battlefield" triggers on cast instead of actual ETB. In Magic, wording can never ambiguous, so if on the card there is written "enters the battlefield" it always triggers on ETB, it's not that if some conditions are met it turns to triggering on cast.
Again, this post is not to grill Legend,
Neither my critiques or anything I ever posted were meant to do that either.
but to help me (and others like me) understand a MtG grammar a better.
I wrote those articles I mentioned before exactly for this purpose. I will definitely write more about this.
Also I've been thinking of setting up a wordings help thread. Where people can ask about roper wordings and stuff.
I'd be totally open and willing to help people on editing/wording. I actually consider that to be my strongest area as a custom card designer. The only thing is that discussion in the hypothetical wording thread can't be an help in contests, so you could not ask help for cards posted in the MCC/CCL/DCC until after the round's design deadline or the vote is closed.
MCC - Winner (6): Oct 2014, Apr Nov 2017, Jan 2018, Apr Jun 2019 || Host (15): Dec 2014, Apr Jul Aug Dec 2015, Mar Jul Aug Oct 2016, Feb Jul 2017, Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) || Judge (34): every month from Nov 2014 to Nov 2016 except Oct 2015, every month from Feb to Jul 2017 except Apr 2017, then Oct 2017, May Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) CCL - Winner (3): Jul 2016 (tied with Flatline), May 2017, Jul 2019 (last one here) || Host (5): Feb 2015, Mar Apr May Jun 2016 DCC - Winner (1): Mar 2015 (tied with Piar) || Host (3): May Oct 2015, Jan 2016
• The two public custom sets I've been part a part of the design team for: "Brotherhood of Ormos" - Blog post with all info - set thread - design skeleton / card list || "Extinctia: Homo Evanuit" - Blog post with all info - set thread - card list spreadsheet
• "The Lion's Lair", my article series about MTG and custom card design in particular. Latest article here. Here is the article index.Rather outdated by now, and based on the old MCC rubric, but I'm leaving this here for anybody that might be interested anyway.
• My only public attempt at being a writer: the story of my Leonin custom planeswalker Jeff Lionheart. (I have a very big one that I'm working on right now but that's private for now, and I don't know if I will ever actually publish it, and I also have ideas for multiple future ones, including one where I'm going to reprise Jeff.)
I suppose what was bothering me is what I see as a bit of hypocrisy. You judge strictly and accurately based on current WotC design conventions. But when it comes to textual card formatting, you have your own ideas and don't accept WotC's formatting, which was plainly seen and strictly enforced by WotC during both Great Designer Searches. I'm not suggesting that there be a formatting conversion from Salvation style to WotC style, but I do ask that those of us who prefer to format as WotC does should be allowed to do so without negative repercussions. And that the use of WotC's formatting be recognized as legitimate and sincere rather than odd and resistant.
2. Flatline - Strictly speaking, you're a rebel with no regard for the rules and should be permanently disqualified, but you're lucky because I'm in a good mood today so I won't use my connections and influence to make that happen. I am keeping an eye on you and your comrades though.
Haha! You can try, but you'll never catch us!
I wish I could say I was a rebel with no regard for the rules, but in all honesty I am just an idiot that made a card that doesn't technically pass the challenge. The funny thing is, I read and understood the challenge, but then I accidentally ignored it completely. I have no explanation as to why. Either way, I liked the card I submitted (in a vacuum). I'm really surprised it doesn't already exist.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
(22 Total) - October 2014; December 2014; January 2015; April 2015; June 2015; August 2015; September 2015; November 2015; December 2015(T); January 2016; March 2016(T); April 2016; June 2016; October 2016; December 2016(T); February 2017; April 2017; December 2017; November 2018(T); January 2019; April 2019; June 2019
(8 Total) - May 2015; May 2016; June 2016; August 2016; October 2016; December 2016; October 2017; May 2019
(7 Total) - September 2015; October 2015; January 2016; March 2016; April 2016; July 2016(T); March 2019(T)
I wholeheartedly apologize for missing the round 2 crit deadline. I meant to post them last night but something came up, and I thought tonight was the deadline for some reason (I really gotta start paying better attention). Anyway, I went ahead and posted my crits anyway if anybody from my bracket is interested in taking a look. I didn't include a top 3 though. I figure the next round is set already, so why potentially upset someone that might have made it if I actually posted on time. BTW, I was going to proof read them again one more time before posting, but I kinda lost my will when I saw I missed the deadline, so please forgive me if there are any typos.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
(22 Total) - October 2014; December 2014; January 2015; April 2015; June 2015; August 2015; September 2015; November 2015; December 2015(T); January 2016; March 2016(T); April 2016; June 2016; October 2016; December 2016(T); February 2017; April 2017; December 2017; November 2018(T); January 2019; April 2019; June 2019
(8 Total) - May 2015; May 2016; June 2016; August 2016; October 2016; December 2016; October 2017; May 2019
(7 Total) - September 2015; October 2015; January 2016; March 2016; April 2016; July 2016(T); March 2019(T)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
As far as I'm concerned, you're free to try that in September and see how it turns out. Just make sure to say that beforehand at the beginning of round 1 and possibly repeat it in each round's OP, so that people know it before submitting their card.
MCC - Winner (6): Oct 2014, Apr Nov 2017, Jan 2018, Apr Jun 2019 || Host (15): Dec 2014, Apr Jul Aug Dec 2015, Mar Jul Aug Oct 2016, Feb Jul 2017, Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) || Judge (34): every month from Nov 2014 to Nov 2016 except Oct 2015, every month from Feb to Jul 2017 except Apr 2017, then Oct 2017, May Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here)
CCL - Winner (3): Jul 2016 (tied with Flatline), May 2017, Jul 2019 (last one here) || Host (5): Feb 2015, Mar Apr May Jun 2016
DCC - Winner (1): Mar 2015 (tied with Piar) || Host (3): May Oct 2015, Jan 2016
• The two public custom sets I've been part a part of the design team for:
"Brotherhood of Ormos" - Blog post with all info - set thread - design skeleton / card list || "Extinctia: Homo Evanuit" - Blog post with all info - set thread - card list spreadsheet
• "The Lion's Lair", my article series about MTG and custom card design in particular. Latest article here. Here is the article index. Rather outdated by now, and based on the old MCC rubric, but I'm leaving this here for anybody that might be interested anyway.
• My only public attempt at being a writer: the story of my Leonin custom planeswalker Jeff Lionheart. (I have a very big one that I'm working on right now but that's private for now, and I don't know if I will ever actually publish it, and I also have ideas for multiple future ones, including one where I'm going to reprise Jeff.)
Are we just going to ignore that and play alternate universe?
Multiple instances of lifelink on the same creature are redundant.
Multiple instances of lifelink on the same creature are redundant.
—Eli Shiffrin, Rules Manager, on a design stacking lifelink instances
Edit: I’ve updated the post to clarify this.
( ancestral on Custom Magic Discord server )
( mproud on reddit )
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/creativity/custom-card-creation/custom-card-contests-and-games/375920-ccl-discussion
In short very hard to critique as everyone did good. Flavor is what will break the tie
Edit: BTW, page and apprentice are basically the same thing. The card you gave first to is an apprentice. Is the main problem you have with it the fact that it references Snapcaster Mage, but isn't just a lesser version of the card? The two cards still clearly interact in a student - master sort of way. Maybe I should have made the flavor text something like this instead.... "I would like to go over that spell again my lord. Please allow me to fetch the necessary components for you."
Edit2: BTW, I really like your entry for round 1 a lot. I didn't get to judge it, but if I did, I would've had a really hard time choosing between it and Legend's card for 1st. Not that that has anything to do with the rest of this post, but I figured as long as I hassling you, I might as well give some positive feedback as well.
Netn10, you may want to fix this.
"And the Next Top Model IS ..."
(Commercial)
When it came to the poll, I figured having the results visible could easily influence the voting one way or another. That being said, if people do not like that, I can revert it.
Also, I am going to absolutely close the poll at the end of Round 2, next Friday.
( ancestral on Custom Magic Discord server )
( mproud on reddit )
MCC - Winner (6): Oct 2014, Apr Nov 2017, Jan 2018, Apr Jun 2019 || Host (15): Dec 2014, Apr Jul Aug Dec 2015, Mar Jul Aug Oct 2016, Feb Jul 2017, Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) || Judge (34): every month from Nov 2014 to Nov 2016 except Oct 2015, every month from Feb to Jul 2017 except Apr 2017, then Oct 2017, May Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here)
CCL - Winner (3): Jul 2016 (tied with Flatline), May 2017, Jul 2019 (last one here) || Host (5): Feb 2015, Mar Apr May Jun 2016
DCC - Winner (1): Mar 2015 (tied with Piar) || Host (3): May Oct 2015, Jan 2016
• The two public custom sets I've been part a part of the design team for:
"Brotherhood of Ormos" - Blog post with all info - set thread - design skeleton / card list || "Extinctia: Homo Evanuit" - Blog post with all info - set thread - card list spreadsheet
• "The Lion's Lair", my article series about MTG and custom card design in particular. Latest article here. Here is the article index. Rather outdated by now, and based on the old MCC rubric, but I'm leaving this here for anybody that might be interested anyway.
• My only public attempt at being a writer: the story of my Leonin custom planeswalker Jeff Lionheart. (I have a very big one that I'm working on right now but that's private for now, and I don't know if I will ever actually publish it, and I also have ideas for multiple future ones, including one where I'm going to reprise Jeff.)
I know Blydden was working furiously on this (all the while hosting the MCC too!)
Looks like all the time spent paid off!
( ancestral on Custom Magic Discord server )
( mproud on reddit )
Don't feel bad bravelion, I'm not sure what I was thinking.
I have a hard time believing that you can't see past a little rules innovation (and it is a little) to the point where you consider it unprintable. Since when is innovation so frowned upon in these games? I seriously doubt that you are so close-minded. It seems more like an excuse to punish me for adhering to WotC formatting.
One of the nice things I truly appreciate about the CCL is that it feels a little more relaxed with regards to creating designs and judging when compared to other contests here. Perhaps it’s partly that we often have new folks tasked with judging and rating the cards, so our expectations must be lower; or perhaps it’s people seeing the intent behind the design, the card’s potential; or that they may choose to relate to a card purely at an emotional level. Whatever the case may be, I think the CCL is about having fun and learning as you go, and we should never lose that.
I believe bravelion83 is correct here about the card — but it matters not, as ultimately, it’s up to Legend’s peers to decide whether they like the card or not. If people wish to point this out in the critiques or penalize him/her, that’s their prerogative. That being said, this is a design contest; the focus should be more on the design and less on the development. If it were me judging cards with rules syntax errors, I would choose to overlook it, as I’m after a solid design, as long as it’s not a semantic error (if someone put “target player” but maybe meant to put “target creature or player” I would hold them to the submitted version).
It’s highly advised people hold their peers to the requirements of the round, but there is no prescribed criteria when it comes to CCL critiques, and I think that’s fine.
( ancestral on Custom Magic Discord server )
( mproud on reddit )
Okay so in light of this wording incident, how should we word it to reflect its intended effect? (The purpose of this post is to help beginner/notso beginner people (like me) know more about wording.)
So help me know which of these my attempts to word the card properly is considered OK wording.
now on try2 i assume this is functionally the same, right? because when the Hydra is reanimated or blinked or peristed/undyinged, it auto-dies right? so the effect is totally on cast only?
Again, this post is not to grill Legend, but to help me (and others like me) understand a MtG grammar a better.
Also I've been thinking of setting up a wordings help thread. Where people can ask about roper wordings and stuff.
In response to the last two posts, I always point out any kind of mistake I see, no matter how small it can be, with the intent to let designers know the mistakes and get better, but in the case of unimportant mistakes and such I then never count them when establishing my top 3 and giving points in the CCL. The problem with Legend's card is that the mistake is functional, and that makes it important to me as it makes the card not work at all. How should it be? Well, why does the ETB ability have to contain the X? That's what causes problems and it's easily removed:
Et voila! You have a perfectly working card that is functionally equivalent, as the damage will be equal to the number of counters the creature has anyway (excluding strange corner cases as usual in Magic). Are you worried about effects that might raise its base power and toughness before the ability resolves? Then turn it into this:
In my opinion the extra words are not worth it, but if you prefer this, it works too. Now, if you want to get really deep, you might be worried about effects that can put additional counters before the ability resolves. Then do this:
This is really unelegant but it works. The fact is: it took me more time to type all these then to come up with those working version. It would have taken only a few seconds to edit the post and change the wording to make the card work. So why did the designer not do it? I can't believe a person, for as busy as they can be, didn't have a single minute to adjust that in almost one whole week the round was open before the deadline. I can only think they don't know that the card doesn't actually work, so what I do is explaining them the thing so that they can avoid similar mistakes in their future designs. I try to turn that into a learning occasion. This is my intention at least.
As for the proposed versions:
This works, but would look confusing to some players ("why does it say 'as'? That's strange..."). It all boils down to how triggered abilities are defined and the consequent functional difference between "as" and "when". I've already talked about it in my "Magic Grammar" articles (part of "The Lion's Lair" series, link in signature), but here it is:
"When" (also "whenever" and "at") defines a triggered ability, that only triggers after the permanent has already entered the battlefield. The sequence is: permanent enters, ability triggers, ability goes on the stack, ability resolves. These three words ("when, whenever, at") are the only ones that define a triggered ability. In other words: an ability that starts with "when", "whenever" or "at" is necessarily a triggered ability, it can't be any other kind of ability, it must be triggered. The reverse is also true: do you want to know if an ability is triggered or not? Just look at its first word: is it one of those three? If yes, then it triggered. If not, it cannot be triggered. There are no exceptions and no ambiguities to this. The negation is also true: if an ability doesn't start with one of these three words, it cannot be a triggered ability. It can be anything but not a triggered ability.
"As" is not either of those three words, so an ability that starts with "as" cannot be triggered, so what it is? It can't be activated either, because an ability must contain a colon to be activated, and there is no colon here. So what it is? It turns out that in the rules abilities starting with "as" are a particular kind of static abilities that modifies the act itself of entering the battlefield. So the sequence is: the permanent spell is resolving (it hasn't entered the battlefield yet), and as part of its resolution the "as" effect (in this case the damage) happens and can't be responded to because it's part of the resolution and you can't do anything while a spell is resolving. A consequence of this is that if you want to prevent the damage you must do so in response to the permanent spell. Once that starts resolving it's too late. I hope you can see the difference.
In this case we have a triggered ability (starts with "when") that goes on the stack on top of the Hydra and so it will resolve before the Hydra enters and while the Hydra is still on the stack. While the Hydra is on the stack, X is defined, so this works too.
This is correct.
Here you may be making a cause-effect relationship that isn't there. The fact that the Hydra does not get counters when blinked, reanimated, etc... and instanly dies doesn't mean that an ability that starts with "when CARDNAME enters the battlefield" triggers on cast instead of actual ETB. In Magic, wording can never ambiguous, so if on the card there is written "enters the battlefield" it always triggers on ETB, it's not that if some conditions are met it turns to triggering on cast.
Neither my critiques or anything I ever posted were meant to do that either.
I wrote those articles I mentioned before exactly for this purpose. I will definitely write more about this.
I'd be totally open and willing to help people on editing/wording. I actually consider that to be my strongest area as a custom card designer. The only thing is that discussion in the hypothetical wording thread can't be an help in contests, so you could not ask help for cards posted in the MCC/CCL/DCC until after the round's design deadline or the vote is closed.
MCC - Winner (6): Oct 2014, Apr Nov 2017, Jan 2018, Apr Jun 2019 || Host (15): Dec 2014, Apr Jul Aug Dec 2015, Mar Jul Aug Oct 2016, Feb Jul 2017, Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) || Judge (34): every month from Nov 2014 to Nov 2016 except Oct 2015, every month from Feb to Jul 2017 except Apr 2017, then Oct 2017, May Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here)
CCL - Winner (3): Jul 2016 (tied with Flatline), May 2017, Jul 2019 (last one here) || Host (5): Feb 2015, Mar Apr May Jun 2016
DCC - Winner (1): Mar 2015 (tied with Piar) || Host (3): May Oct 2015, Jan 2016
• The two public custom sets I've been part a part of the design team for:
"Brotherhood of Ormos" - Blog post with all info - set thread - design skeleton / card list || "Extinctia: Homo Evanuit" - Blog post with all info - set thread - card list spreadsheet
• "The Lion's Lair", my article series about MTG and custom card design in particular. Latest article here. Here is the article index. Rather outdated by now, and based on the old MCC rubric, but I'm leaving this here for anybody that might be interested anyway.
• My only public attempt at being a writer: the story of my Leonin custom planeswalker Jeff Lionheart. (I have a very big one that I'm working on right now but that's private for now, and I don't know if I will ever actually publish it, and I also have ideas for multiple future ones, including one where I'm going to reprise Jeff.)
I suppose what was bothering me is what I see as a bit of hypocrisy. You judge strictly and accurately based on current WotC design conventions. But when it comes to textual card formatting, you have your own ideas and don't accept WotC's formatting, which was plainly seen and strictly enforced by WotC during both Great Designer Searches. I'm not suggesting that there be a formatting conversion from Salvation style to WotC style, but I do ask that those of us who prefer to format as WotC does should be allowed to do so without negative repercussions. And that the use of WotC's formatting be recognized as legitimate and sincere rather than odd and resistant.
I wish I could say I was a rebel with no regard for the rules, but in all honesty I am just an idiot that made a card that doesn't technically pass the challenge. The funny thing is, I read and understood the challenge, but then I accidentally ignored it completely. I have no explanation as to why. Either way, I liked the card I submitted (in a vacuum). I'm really surprised it doesn't already exist.
Yes, it is one of those cards.