Quality: 4/4 - Now includes proper use of mana symbols and miscellaneous render issues (such as microtext, art that is clearly not the quality level seen on Magic cards, etc.). Failing to meet the round criteria, or poorly meeting it in the case of a subjective criteria, can earn deductions here.
You gave him 0/4 in quality when, just because the card is broken, doesn't mean he didn't get the rest of those points.
Also, remember, this card is a creature and is effected by summoning sickness (I'm old and I still prefer this term). So it hits turn 4, and with each of those aura's that you pointed out, it can't be used until turn 5. (To be used immediately, you need a card like Opposition which has same cmc, so still turn 5.) You gave an infinite combo that goes off on turn 5 and is VERY easily disrupted a 0? Don't get too caught up in the possibility of brokenness. This card is broken, but it is nowhere near off the map.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Drink Coffee: Do stupid things faster with more energy."
"Sarcasm is the body's natural defense against Stupidity"
Hate? Nah...I know better than to expect quality from a Guay-hater. Actually, I realized (post-deadline) the horrible mistake, but I agree with Bel, a 7/25 for something that a simple in front of the untap symbol would have fixed is ridiculous. 1/4 in creativity? Sooooo the only possible creative element of the card is the free untap?
I didn't expect to advance after the flub, but I also didn't expect to be insulted.
Can someone see Niv's judging and tell me if I'm crazy or not? P E got the highest score among those players, mainly because of Creativity (3,25/4) and Flavor (5/5). But the card isn't so creative (is too similar to Chance Encounter) and the flavor... Niv only gave 5/5 in flavor because he likes the art! (Those things aren't even dolmens!)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
(I don't speak english, so any tip about spelling or grammar is welcome.)
I'm going to wait till technomagus can look at this and reply before saying anymore but suffice to say if it's not altered I will remark your card for you cantrip (unofficially ofc).
Thanks, but I don't really expect techno to change. I obviously hit a hot button in his opinion.
You graded Cantripmancer's and Black Bull's flavor out of 4 instead of 5, so that their whole score is actually only out of 24.
Also, I do agree with people on Cantripmancer's judging. Free Q is a big mistake, but you took about 15-17 points off for that mistake (since you did mention a couple other things that were wrong in the quality, in a sort of off hand way). I can't imagine any mistake, ever, that is worth that much, unless if flat-out disqualifies the person.
Can someone see Niv's judging and tell me if I'm crazy or not? P E got the highest score among those players, mainly because of Creativity (3,25/4) and Flavor (5/5). But the card isn't so creative (is too similar to Chance Encounter) and the flavor... Niv only gave 5/5 in flavor because he likes the art! (Those things aren't even dolmens!)
I do agree with you. You can't really get anywhere with flavor, since it's all subjective, but he does seem to have overlooked Chance Encounter, considering about 2/3 of the card's text is the same.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Life... is like a grapefruit. It's orange and squishy, has a few pips in it, and some folks have half a one for breakfast."
-Douglas Adams
Can someone see Niv's judging and tell me if I'm crazy or not? P E got the highest score among those players, mainly because of Creativity (3,25/4) and Flavor (5/5). But the card isn't so creative (is too similar to Chance Encounter) and the flavor... Niv only gave 5/5 in flavor because he likes the art! (Those things aren't even dolmens!)
I agree with you, but I doubt he'll change the scores unless you manage to incite demonstrations on the streets. He says as much in his disclaimer - perhaps he can come up with some spiffy justification that clashing is completely different from coin flipping. You only have a 40% chance rather than a 50% chance! And... there's an extra line of text!
You graded Cantripmancer's and Black Bull's flavor out of 4 instead of 5, so that their whole score is actually only out of 24.
Aha! I call foul! Misjudge! Reshuffle!
*ahem*
To be constructive: No offense intended toward Niv, but it rarely seems like he does the research into similar cards. I was guilty of that my first few times judging, so I can understand, but it took several times of people calling me on my lack of research before I realized that needs to be a normal step of judging a card. It's good that these things are discussed.
Belgareth> Green doesn't have unblockable. Jhessian infiltrator is blue, which means you have to have blue to play it. Tanglewalker has a version of a landwalk ability, not complete unblockability. (It basically says "creatures you control have artifact landwalk.") And Trailblazer is a really old card, one that deliberately gives off-color abilities for a much higher cost, like Unyaro Bee Sting. It costs 2GG, whereas Infilitrate does exactly the same thing for U. So the three cards you name definitely don't "prove" that unblockability is reasonable on a nonblue card.
And as kraj pointed out the ability to have a creature deal damage as though it wasn't blocked is to all intents and purposes unblockable.
I can stick a Hill Giant in front of a Lone Wolf and kill it. It might not prevent the damage, but it'll kill it. The same cannot be said for Phantom Warrior.
I think the ability to kill it with a blocker is a signifcant 'intent and purpose'.
I'll just quote MaRo here in his comment on Shadowmoor's Tattermunge Duo, if it helps...
"Another duo. We chose forestwalk because we were trying to find an evasion keyword in green, which, if you've never looked, is not an easy task. (Let's just say it's no blue or black.)"
I admit the mistake on the Flavor part. Got a few numbers mixed on the ranking. So Cantrip gets an 8, instead, and Black Bull gets his 19. I still stand by the fact that Cantrip's card is actually recieving a gracious judging from me. I don't know what world you live in, Bel, but where I come from YawgWin would only recieve a 1 because it makes you pay the mana cost to replay the spells. Oh, and being four mana never stopped anything from being played in a broken engine. Need I direct you at a seemingly innocuous 3/2 flier for 4B called Skirge Familiar that happened to be the cornerstone to the infamous Yawgmoth's Bargain deck from Black Summer? Frankly, if a card warrants a ban in any Standard it is/was a part of, it should not be allowed to have a balance score higher than 1. And that's if the judge is being generous. And Cantrip's 0 in Quality is not only because the card is broken, but also because of it's atrocious wording and targetting restrictions. For someone who's been around as long as he has, he should know how targetting such abilities works by now. And I don't know about you, but I also view quality as the effort put into making the card the best I can make it. That means also checking to make sure it doesn't break the game above and beyond just balancing it for its cost.
Thinking about it now, I'd say a good comparison to unblockability on a black-green card is Rebuff the Wicked. White normally doesn't get to directly counter spells, but for all intents and purposes, Shelter can basically do the same thing, so it works. (I know Rebuff the Wicked is in Planar Chaos, but I think the principle here applies, especially since I think either MaRo or one of the development columnists may have specifically said that this is the thought process leading to its creation).
Similarly, black and green don't normally get straight up unblockability, but they get things that are very close. Fear isn't too far off on its own, and add in flying, shadow, landwalk, or trample/supertrample, and it may as well be unblockable. Granted, it still feels different, and has some awkwardness, just like how Rebuff the Wicked still feels a bit odd as a white counterspell, but it doesn't do anything it's colors aren't allowed to do. It just does it in a different way from normal.
I'm actually not a fan of any of the examples given for mono-green unblockability, since in my opinion landwalk and supertrample, while both related to unblockability, are not sufficient cases on their own, and Trailblazer isn't any better an argument for unblockability in green than Unyaro Bee Sting is for direct damage in green. On the other hand, if you made a creature with every type of basic landwalk, I'd say it would be very green and effectively unblockable.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Life... is like a grapefruit. It's orange and squishy, has a few pips in it, and some folks have half a one for breakfast."
-Douglas Adams
I believe (and I may end up eating these words later on) that any color can do virtually anything with proper flavor justification. Rebuff the Wicked is a great example of white doing something it technically shouldn't, but in a very white way (thought I don't aknowlegde that the card actually exists... ;)). However, in order to justify something flavorwise, it often requires "tweaking" the ability to make it fit. While has always been able to counter spells in manydifferentways, RtW is just a more "direct" approach.
So, can a BG creature have "~ is unblockable"? Probably shouldn't (though again, porper flavor justification can make it work). But, as stated, there are ways to make it "virtually unblockable" and still feel BG. Consider if the creature had fear and swampwalk? Fear is obviously very black, and swampwalk has appeared on many black and green cards. Together, the creature is nigh-unblockable, and fits perfectly within BG.
So, basically, I'm just echoing everything that's been said: it could have worked with unblockablity, but didn't. There were other routes that could have been taken with almost identical results, but would have been more in color.
I definitely want to agree with Belgareth, zero should only come up if a card is shamefully bad. On balance I would probably also extend that to anything comperable in power to the power nine or strictly better than other broken cards (I.e., a 1 cost Arcbound Ravager clone.) For zero quality the card would have to have the feel that the person who made it doesn't understand the basics of the game. I feel that if you get a zero somewhere that's a sign you shouldn't play at all. I often stress the importance of judges using the low scores with the high, but a single zero is something that is difficult bordering on impossible to recover from.
Let's ignore my Judgings for the moment. Can you HONESTLY and in GOOD CONCIENCE say that Cantrip's card actually deserves to pass to round three? With a rather huge balance mistake like a free ability and an atrociously worded activated ability? There's no bias here, I just choose to use the full range of scores available to me instead of just 6-10. I don't pull punches just because someone is a regular, and I don't expect the same, either, when I play.
Oh, and being four mana never stopped anything from being played in a broken engine. Need I direct you at a seemingly innocuous 3/2 flier for 4B called Skirge Familiar that happened to be the cornerstone to the infamous Yawgmoth's Bargain deck from Black Summer?
I will only respond to this since it was directed at me. There is simply no comparison between Skirge Familiar and Cantrip's card. Skirge was capable the turn it came into play since it's ability could activate at instant speed and didn't require tapping. Cantrip's card has to wait a full turn. Then you need to play something else the next turn (unless you wait until turn 6 to drop both at once). This is very good, but not completely broken.
Also, we aren't talking about making it to round three. We are talking about a complete difference of opinion concerning the balance of his card.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Drink Coffee: Do stupid things faster with more energy."
"Sarcasm is the body's natural defense against Stupidity"
Let's ignore my Judgings for the moment. Can you HONESTLY and in GOOD CONCIENCE say that Cantrip's card actually deserves to pass to round three?
This statement (question) suggests that you gave him the zeroes in order to ensure that he didn't advance. I don't know if that's what you intend to suggest, but that's how it's coming across to me. That strikes me as a backwards way of judging. I don't think judges should look at all the cards, choose the ones that "deserve" to pass, and then assign scores to fit.
So far, I haven't been concerning myself with who will advance. I'm looking at the cards, trying to see how they can be used, how they can be better, coming up with scores as objectively as possible, and providing comments so that each player I'm judging can become a better card designer. Then I add up the numbers, and I end up finding out who passes my pod only a few minutes before anyone else does.
I haven't interpreted what anyone else has written here as saying that Cantrip's card specifically deserves to pass, so I'm a bit uncertain why you're asking that question. I didn't look at the other cards in your pod, so I can't answer that question. Looking at your judging of Cantrips card, it looked to me like you tried to penalize him twice as heavily as possible for the same mistake. It struck me as biased and overly fixated on the single mistake. There are other things to be considering in the card's design, particulary in the Quality score.
I don't think Cantrip should feel insulted, because it looks to me like the problem is on your end, not his. Annoyed at not getting a fair evaluation, yes, but not insulted.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
This is our last dance, this is ourselves under pressure.
I know when I was judging I would say "This is the best card" or "this card should advance" to my self.
But when I went through doing the judges and got to the final score I found that sometimes a card I did not think "should" advance, did; and that the card I thought was the best, was not. That is the way it should be. Just because a card has some errors or might be broken does not mean it CAN'T advance. You should do the judges in a fair way and THEN see.
We are all human, and we all 'like' some cards more than others, but we should try and make that effect our judges as little as possible.
Also, you should judge even the really ****** cards in an even and fair way, so that the person can learn for next time. The only way I won the FCC was to remember what all of the judges said about my old cards. Each time I lost a FCC(or even won) I would remember what was said to help me out next time.
Any judge that does not do the judgings the way the rules say you should is doing everyone a disservice.
I'm surprised no one's paid much attention to Cantrip's creativity score, which I thought was even worse than the quality score. Technomagus has offered defense against the quality score, which is that, even without the free untap, the ability doesn't work due to the way it targets (the number of targets is based on the clash, but the clash happens after targets are chosen), and also has the mistake of saying "clash with target opponent" rather than "clash with an opponent."
On the other hand, I fail to see how one mistake affects cretivity in anyway. The creativity comment implies that the free untap was the only creative aspect of the card, when that was clearly just a balance tweak that was made without considering combo potential (I think it would be kind of neat to try to find ways to keep tapping him to reuse the ability before he dies if it weren't for the number of effects that let you do it infinitely). On the other hand, the ability itself does something very new with clash too that was completely ignored in the creativity score. Personally, I probably would have given the card full marks for creativity, as I think what it's trying to do is very cool and innovative, even if balance and templating issues stop it from working.
I agree that in both cases Cantrip is being short changed. Creativity wise and quality.
Yes, the card is broken if you were to get a Power of Fire, Gond whatever, onto it, but I would see that as an oversight, not a absolute failure. However, like Soron said, when something like that happens, the judge becomes the teacher, points out the mistake (as opposed to beating it over ones head) and makes a lesson of it. That's the main reason I play in the FCC, I love the feed back, a) it makes my cards better and b) it helps me understand the value of cards and threat evaluation while playing in an actual game. For example when Weirdling used to still judge, (or be online at all) I would always look forwards to him judging my card, good or bad simply because I knew I was going to get a good explaination as to what was good and what I needed to work on.
As for Creativity, as far as I know thats a relatively untouched upon ability (untap or otherwise) and while it perhaps doesn't deserve 4/4, the idea behind it is still new. You can't be bad at being creative if it's still new material.
So yeh, end result, broken card, but not an 0/10. I'd say (in my very unnofficial non-judge opinion) 3.5/10. Creativity would sit around a 3/4 for me. Just my opinion.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
^ Done by ME! (My first banner)
IIW:
1. Design a new Ravnica mechanic for one of the old guilds and make a card around it.
2.Design a mono-colored card using two Ravnica mechanics that both come from the color you're using.
3. Blow up a land.
Winner is Judge Wins: 12345
@Belgareth: Ok, so now 'judge' mine and Iowercase's entries, because I don't think that card could have the same scores at ours (or just 1 point down).
No one here tried to ofense anyone, so don't play that kind of comment here. Following the same point of view u had about Chronomagus' attitude (I'm not defending him or agreeing, actually I think he didn't graded right Cantripmancer), I could feel u're ofending my design skills putting that card at the same score at mine (of course I don't think that). Just an observation.
You gave him 0/4 in quality when, just because the card is broken, doesn't mean he didn't get the rest of those points.
Also, remember, this card is a creature and is effected by summoning sickness (I'm old and I still prefer this term). So it hits turn 4, and with each of those aura's that you pointed out, it can't be used until turn 5. (To be used immediately, you need a card like Opposition which has same cmc, so still turn 5.) You gave an infinite combo that goes off on turn 5 and is VERY easily disrupted a 0? Don't get too caught up in the possibility of brokenness. This card is broken, but it is nowhere near off the map.
"Sarcasm is the body's natural defense against Stupidity"
Hate? Nah...I know better than to expect quality from a Guay-hater.
I didn't expect to advance after the flub, but I also didn't expect to be insulted.
Thanks, but I don't really expect techno to change. I obviously hit a hot button in his opinion.
You graded Cantripmancer's and Black Bull's flavor out of 4 instead of 5, so that their whole score is actually only out of 24.
Also, I do agree with people on Cantripmancer's judging. Free Q is a big mistake, but you took about 15-17 points off for that mistake (since you did mention a couple other things that were wrong in the quality, in a sort of off hand way). I can't imagine any mistake, ever, that is worth that much, unless if flat-out disqualifies the person.
I do agree with you. You can't really get anywhere with flavor, since it's all subjective, but he does seem to have overlooked Chance Encounter, considering about 2/3 of the card's text is the same.
-Douglas Adams
I agree with you, but I doubt he'll change the scores unless you manage to incite demonstrations on the streets. He says as much in his disclaimer - perhaps he can come up with some spiffy justification that clashing is completely different from coin flipping. You only have a 40% chance rather than a 50% chance! And... there's an extra line of text!
Yeah, good luck though.
*ahem*
To be constructive: No offense intended toward Niv, but it rarely seems like he does the research into similar cards. I was guilty of that my first few times judging, so I can understand, but it took several times of people calling me on my lack of research before I realized that needs to be a normal step of judging a card. It's good that these things are discussed.
They have been altered
Millionaires, I hear it's good Music (Disclaimer: lyrics not PG-13) Thanks, CC
Hanna, Ship's Navigator - WU Enchantments Control
Wort, the Raidmother - RG Copy ALL the Spells!
Rakdos, Lord of Riots - BR Group Murder-Hug
Reaper King - WUBRG Token Copies
Shirei, Shizo's Caretaker - B Sacrifice Engine
Grenzo, Dungeon Warden - BR Randomized Toolbox
Karametra, God of Harvests - GW Ramp
I can stick a Hill Giant in front of a Lone Wolf and kill it. It might not prevent the damage, but it'll kill it. The same cannot be said for Phantom Warrior.
I think the ability to kill it with a blocker is a signifcant 'intent and purpose'.
'Bad Spirit' banner by Hot Pizza at Ye Olde Sig and Avatar Shoppe
I was a Top 32 Contestant for RPG Superstar 2008!
Come take a look at my custom set, Lost Relics. (To be finished...eventually)
Check out the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
"Another duo. We chose forestwalk because we were trying to find an evasion keyword in green, which, if you've never looked, is not an easy task. (Let's just say it's no blue or black.)"
That's all. Make of it what you will.
My Custom Cards
My Twitch - Languishing in neglect under the vain hope of starting again
My Livestream Archive
Similarly, black and green don't normally get straight up unblockability, but they get things that are very close. Fear isn't too far off on its own, and add in flying, shadow, landwalk, or trample/supertrample, and it may as well be unblockable. Granted, it still feels different, and has some awkwardness, just like how Rebuff the Wicked still feels a bit odd as a white counterspell, but it doesn't do anything it's colors aren't allowed to do. It just does it in a different way from normal.
I'm actually not a fan of any of the examples given for mono-green unblockability, since in my opinion landwalk and supertrample, while both related to unblockability, are not sufficient cases on their own, and Trailblazer isn't any better an argument for unblockability in green than Unyaro Bee Sting is for direct damage in green. On the other hand, if you made a creature with every type of basic landwalk, I'd say it would be very green and effectively unblockable.
-Douglas Adams
So, can a BG creature have "~ is unblockable"? Probably shouldn't (though again, porper flavor justification can make it work). But, as stated, there are ways to make it "virtually unblockable" and still feel BG. Consider if the creature had fear and swampwalk? Fear is obviously very black, and swampwalk has appeared on many black and green cards. Together, the creature is nigh-unblockable, and fits perfectly within BG.
So, basically, I'm just echoing everything that's been said: it could have worked with unblockablity, but didn't. There were other routes that could have been taken with almost identical results, but would have been more in color.
My Custom Cards
My Twitch - Languishing in neglect under the vain hope of starting again
My Livestream Archive
I will only respond to this since it was directed at me. There is simply no comparison between Skirge Familiar and Cantrip's card. Skirge was capable the turn it came into play since it's ability could activate at instant speed and didn't require tapping. Cantrip's card has to wait a full turn. Then you need to play something else the next turn (unless you wait until turn 6 to drop both at once). This is very good, but not completely broken.
Also, we aren't talking about making it to round three. We are talking about a complete difference of opinion concerning the balance of his card.
"Sarcasm is the body's natural defense against Stupidity"
This statement (question) suggests that you gave him the zeroes in order to ensure that he didn't advance. I don't know if that's what you intend to suggest, but that's how it's coming across to me. That strikes me as a backwards way of judging. I don't think judges should look at all the cards, choose the ones that "deserve" to pass, and then assign scores to fit.
So far, I haven't been concerning myself with who will advance. I'm looking at the cards, trying to see how they can be used, how they can be better, coming up with scores as objectively as possible, and providing comments so that each player I'm judging can become a better card designer. Then I add up the numbers, and I end up finding out who passes my pod only a few minutes before anyone else does.
I haven't interpreted what anyone else has written here as saying that Cantrip's card specifically deserves to pass, so I'm a bit uncertain why you're asking that question. I didn't look at the other cards in your pod, so I can't answer that question. Looking at your judging of Cantrips card, it looked to me like you tried to penalize him twice as heavily as possible for the same mistake. It struck me as biased and overly fixated on the single mistake. There are other things to be considering in the card's design, particulary in the Quality score.
I don't think Cantrip should feel insulted, because it looks to me like the problem is on your end, not his. Annoyed at not getting a fair evaluation, yes, but not insulted.
But when I went through doing the judges and got to the final score I found that sometimes a card I did not think "should" advance, did; and that the card I thought was the best, was not. That is the way it should be. Just because a card has some errors or might be broken does not mean it CAN'T advance. You should do the judges in a fair way and THEN see.
We are all human, and we all 'like' some cards more than others, but we should try and make that effect our judges as little as possible.
Also, you should judge even the really ****** cards in an even and fair way, so that the person can learn for next time. The only way I won the FCC was to remember what all of the judges said about my old cards. Each time I lost a FCC(or even won) I would remember what was said to help me out next time.
Any judge that does not do the judgings the way the rules say you should is doing everyone a disservice.
On the other hand, I fail to see how one mistake affects cretivity in anyway. The creativity comment implies that the free untap was the only creative aspect of the card, when that was clearly just a balance tweak that was made without considering combo potential (I think it would be kind of neat to try to find ways to keep tapping him to reuse the ability before he dies if it weren't for the number of effects that let you do it infinitely). On the other hand, the ability itself does something very new with clash too that was completely ignored in the creativity score. Personally, I probably would have given the card full marks for creativity, as I think what it's trying to do is very cool and innovative, even if balance and templating issues stop it from working.
-Douglas Adams
Yes, the card is broken if you were to get a Power of Fire, Gond whatever, onto it, but I would see that as an oversight, not a absolute failure. However, like Soron said, when something like that happens, the judge becomes the teacher, points out the mistake (as opposed to beating it over ones head) and makes a lesson of it. That's the main reason I play in the FCC, I love the feed back, a) it makes my cards better and b) it helps me understand the value of cards and threat evaluation while playing in an actual game. For example when Weirdling used to still judge, (or be online at all) I would always look forwards to him judging my card, good or bad simply because I knew I was going to get a good explaination as to what was good and what I needed to work on.
As for Creativity, as far as I know thats a relatively untouched upon ability (untap or otherwise) and while it perhaps doesn't deserve 4/4, the idea behind it is still new. You can't be bad at being creative if it's still new material.
So yeh, end result, broken card, but not an 0/10. I'd say (in my very unnofficial non-judge opinion) 3.5/10. Creativity would sit around a 3/4 for me. Just my opinion.
^ Done by ME!
1. Design a new Ravnica mechanic for one of the old guilds and make a card around it.
2.Design a mono-colored card using two Ravnica mechanics that both come from the color you're using.
3. Blow up a land.
Winner is Judge Wins:
1 2 3 4 5
I cheated and looked
No one here tried to ofense anyone, so don't play that kind of comment here. Following the same point of view u had about Chronomagus' attitude (I'm not defending him or agreeing, actually I think he didn't graded right Cantripmancer), I could feel u're ofending my design skills putting that card at the same score at mine (of course I don't think that). Just an observation.