EDIT: A lot of contestants have edited their entries around the same time I did. Could you be wrong?
I just double checked each post's timestamp. You were over by 42 minutes (and in fact, 38 minutes over Arz's "round closed" post). There were two competitors who edited a few minutes before the deadline.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'll bet you wish you had a non-unglued/unhinged card that shared your first name.
Ok, i will see what i can do with the render. My magic set editor has been giving me problems lately if anyone noticed from my lack of render for both round 1 and 2.
I'm not good for time zones neither, WT. Thanks for your welcome judging (at least the card wasn't bad) and good luck for those who moves onto the next round (special good luck for Seratonin, my nemesis (lovingly, a la Hiro Nakamura :p)
Altaurus, I think you were victim to KK's 'hidden dagger'. Iridescent is a tricky mechanic to do something original and interesting with, especially at uncommon (i.e., not some wacky rare). The design wasn't bad at all, but unfortunately you got a judge who is generally very good at remembering stuff that's seen print.
I just didn't do my research well enough lol. I spent a good long time going through different designs trying to come up with something that felt uncommon, but didn't just blatantly suck. I admit though, the card I made did feel more rare than uncommon, which is something I noticed but didn't have time to correct. Thanks for the tips though
It's "crunchy" enough to tie into more a few familiar effects, but that makes creating something completely new with the mechanic all the more difficult.
I agree. I think Psuedo picked about the best mechanic around to tie into (intimidate) and it was hard to get around that... for me anyways. I didn't want to have intimidate and iridescent on the same card because then it would feel like psuedo's card. I did try going down the enchantment path, but it became to wordy and complicated for an uncommon. Good luck to anyone next round that tries it out I'm very intrigued with what someone will do with it.
Also @ Azhur, appreciate the mechanic love and glad you passed. I really enjoyed what you did with it
EDIT: On one other note, I would like to apologize for my lack of judging the final round (last month). I'm not going to lie, when I saw there were 10 people it was kind of a turn off and didn't make the time to do it like I should of. Hopefully you will have me back when next time and will be able to redeem myself On that topic, I feel everyone should be a judge every now and then to bring back into perspective how much time and effort it takes to be one. I think alot of people take for granted the dedication people have here. So on that note, I would just like to give a round of digital applause to the many judges and organizers that make this game possible. Without you guys, I'd be pretty damn bored haha.
More than pushing it, I won't be able to finish my last two until tomorrow morning. My apologies (again) to Arzan and all the players who would like to get going on round 3.
Here I was thinking your card was going to get disqualified for not being in a cycle, let alone it getting a perfect score. I really must admit I wouldn't make a very good judge, haha. Congratulations.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Oh, what's that you say, Karn? You remove poison counters? You should tell that to Mr. Rosewater.
I'm curious as to why you think it wasn't in cycle. Are you thinking more of a tight cycle like that of Bloodfire Dwarf, I guess? I think there's a bit more leeway to be had in a loose cycle, such as that with Lumithread Field.
I'm curious as to why you think it wasn't in cycle. Are you thinking more of a tight cycle like that of Bloodfire Dwarf, I guess? I think there's a bit more leeway to be had in a loose cycle, such as that with Lumithread Field.
I think he was referring to the vertical part. Mind you, I suppose the only hard-fast rule about a vertical cycle is that it is spread across multiple rarity levels.
I'm also a little surprised here too, but it's not my place to tell other judges how to do their job. I would've DQ'ed krynthe for sure for being out of cycle.
I think he was referring to the vertical part. Mind you, I suppose the only hard-fast rule about a vertical cycle is that it is spread across multiple rarity levels.
Yeah, I figured the only steadfast rule was "gets more powerful across rarities while retaining an ability". I'm just going by the wiki, here.
I'm also a little surprised here too, but it's not my place to tell other judges how to do their job. I would've DQ'ed krynthe for sure for being out of cycle.
Hm, I guess I'll have to be a bit more careful next round, then. I would argue that my round 2 card is more powerful than Pseudo's round 1, thus satisfying the requirement. I also would argue that it stays in theme, albeit more loosely than, say, a 3/2 Nonac Rogue with Iridescent and Intimidate. (I mean, intimidate and protection are both evasion abilities.) In any case, thanks for the enlightenment.
To me, the only way to continue the Irridiate cycle would be to make something else that wants to be a different color from your opponent's creatures. Both Krynthe and Gerard's Mom took things in a direction opposite Nacreous Predator. GM was closer as he was still in color, but the way they play out is different from the original. If it were me, I would try to make all the nonacs want to be the same color for whatever strategic purpose. If your opponent is playing black let's say, you'd want to have the original creature to become let's say red and the white one to become black. The same is true of GM's card, which I'm too lazy to link to so you'll have to trust me.
My card is here. Kenaron's reasoning is fine, I was just thinking there would be an iridescent guy in black at every rarity. My card works fine with Pseudofate's as long as they are set to different colors.
Thank you for taking care of the brackets arz! Onward!
PS: If this month is "vertical cycle" month, why are we not building off of the round 1 & 2 cards for the cycle we choose? I was figuring to post the round1 common and the round2 uncommon.
Thank you for taking care of the brackets arz! Onward!
PS: If this month is "vertical cycle" month, why are we not building off of the round 1 & 2 cards for the cycle we choose? I was figuring to post the round1 common and the round2 uncommon.
Shut up! You wanna make it more difficult? Why don't you ask him if we have homework after he forgets to while your at it!
Can a player make a card that is in a cycle with someone's round two card that picked their round one card? That is, can someone make a card for this round in a cycle with their own round one card?
For this round, will a spells color be relevant to it being part of a vertical cycle? If I were to make a card based off of krynthe's submission for example, would it be fine for it to be a color other then black or white? It would be likely be best for the judges to come to a consensus on this to avoid any disputes about it during judging.
I want to sound as non-whiny and constructive as possible here, so I apologize if I do. I don't really think MobiusMan understood my card from round 2 as the judging seemed to imply that he misunderstood the use of the possess ability. Unlike ParaSiempres round 1 possess ability, which was to be used as a buff to your own creatures, my round 2 ability was designed to be used as removal. It is not intended to be used on your own creatures, but it appears that's what he thought:
"Seriously, how dead is the possess ability of this card? -4/-4 is a huge burden to put on a creature, (Hylapterous Lemure syndrome?) and evasion and situational removal are not worth that trade."
In reality, the possess is not dead at all. A 2B sorcery-speed sudden death isn't bad, especially when you have the option to play a creature instead, and the -4/-4 is permanent. I actually think it's pretty good. You absolutely should never be using this ability on your own creatures, unless you are trying to give a darksteel colossus or something flying to get in the last few points of damage. That's why I designed it this way: It was an inverse of the round 1 card, which was designed to be used on your own creatures.
This is not as much a complaint as another argument to allow some design notes for future mcc's. I mean, I am obviously biased, but it seems that MobiusMan understood the ability in the wrong way.
This is more for my own curiosity, but I saw that krynthe got a perfect score with a card similar to my original round 2 submission, which I changed due to my thought of it not being enough of a vertical cycle with the original:
Shimmering Angel3WW
Creature - Angel
Flying, Iridescent (At the beginning of your upkeep, this card becomes the color of your choice.)
Shimmering Angel has protection from its colors.
3/3 “The shimmering wings shined as to reflect back the animosity of our foes. Not even Baron Sengir could taint us now.”
—Serra
Render:
Do you think this would've made it to the next round? Just wondering to help me out next month.
To be honest, if the possess on your card was meant to function differently than the posses on the original card, then your card would literally share no resemblance to the first round card and be disqualified for not being in a cycle. Cards in a vertical cycle are supposed to act atleast somewhat similarily to eachother (which is why I also feel that all the cards using iridescent this round shouldn't have passed, but that's not the matter at hand). However, I could be wrong on this matter, but it just appears that the cards have entirely different uses if your card is meant to be removal primarily and his isn't, and you might be hard pressed to justify a cycle.
Well, the earlier card could also be used as removal. The -1/-1 it put on creatures wasn't terrible, but it would certainly be a great way to get rid of annoying utility creatures.
I have to agree that I think some design notes would help in any challenge where people create new name elements like keywords. I saw a few other reviews of cards that seemed to be based on the idea that the card worked radically different from how I imagined.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yo falknir, I'm really happy for you and I'mma let you finish but I made the best mechanic of all time. All time.
Jokes aside, don't go calling keywords or cycles just yet.
If I make it, I'm going to throw a wrench in a cycle next round.
Thanks to PurpleD for the awesome banner!
(Semi-retired)
In the case it is, so it was confusing to me since deadline isn't being marked at midnight as it was usual before (in the FCC at least.)
EDIT: A lot of contestants have edited their entries around the same time I did. Could you be wrong?
The GJ way path to no lynching:
I'm not good for time zones neither, WT. Thanks for your welcome judging (at least the card wasn't bad) and good luck for those who moves onto the next round (special good luck for Seratonin, my nemesis (lovingly, a la Hiro Nakamura :p)
See you next month people.
I just didn't do my research well enough lol. I spent a good long time going through different designs trying to come up with something that felt uncommon, but didn't just blatantly suck. I admit though, the card I made did feel more rare than uncommon, which is something I noticed but didn't have time to correct. Thanks for the tips though
I agree. I think Psuedo picked about the best mechanic around to tie into (intimidate) and it was hard to get around that... for me anyways. I didn't want to have intimidate and iridescent on the same card because then it would feel like psuedo's card. I did try going down the enchantment path, but it became to wordy and complicated for an uncommon. Good luck to anyone next round that tries it out I'm very intrigued with what someone will do with it.
Also @ Azhur, appreciate the mechanic love and glad you passed. I really enjoyed what you did with it
EDIT: On one other note, I would like to apologize for my lack of judging the final round (last month). I'm not going to lie, when I saw there were 10 people it was kind of a turn off and didn't make the time to do it like I should of. Hopefully you will have me back when next time and will be able to redeem myself On that topic, I feel everyone should be a judge every now and then to bring back into perspective how much time and effort it takes to be one. I think alot of people take for granted the dedication people have here. So on that note, I would just like to give a round of digital applause to the many judges and organizers that make this game possible. Without you guys, I'd be pretty damn bored haha.
(CubeTutor & MTGS)
360 Peasant Cube!
Custom Cube
RWU Miracles RWU
I shall wait until tomorrow morning to get results post round 3.
I was a tad worried about the similarity to Knight of Dawn, but I felt the iridescent ability is too good to not go on a Knight like this.
Keep up the good work on running Sept. I look forward to round 3.
I'm curious as to why you think it wasn't in cycle. Are you thinking more of a tight cycle like that of Bloodfire Dwarf, I guess? I think there's a bit more leeway to be had in a loose cycle, such as that with Lumithread Field.
I think he was referring to the vertical part. Mind you, I suppose the only hard-fast rule about a vertical cycle is that it is spread across multiple rarity levels.
Yeah, I figured the only steadfast rule was "gets more powerful across rarities while retaining an ability". I'm just going by the wiki, here.
Hm, I guess I'll have to be a bit more careful next round, then. I would argue that my round 2 card is more powerful than Pseudo's round 1, thus satisfying the requirement. I also would argue that it stays in theme, albeit more loosely than, say, a 3/2 Nonac Rogue with Iridescent and Intimidate. (I mean, intimidate and protection are both evasion abilities.) In any case, thanks for the enlightenment.
So I went and did it miself and shall post round 3 shortly.
PS: If this month is "vertical cycle" month, why are we not building off of the round 1 & 2 cards for the cycle we choose? I was figuring to post the round1 common and the round2 uncommon.
"Sarcasm is the body's natural defense against Stupidity"
Shut up! You wanna make it more difficult? Why don't you ask him if we have homework after he forgets to while your at it!
I think I found a beautiful Vertical example.
How you should approach every game of Magic.
Mod Helpdesk (defunct)
My Flawless Score MCC Card | My Other One | # Three!
Heh, it's not a vertical cycle if you ignore the common!
Awesome example too!
"Sarcasm is the body's natural defense against Stupidity"
"Seriously, how dead is the possess ability of this card? -4/-4 is a huge burden to put on a creature, (Hylapterous Lemure syndrome?) and evasion and situational removal are not worth that trade."
In reality, the possess is not dead at all. A 2B sorcery-speed sudden death isn't bad, especially when you have the option to play a creature instead, and the -4/-4 is permanent. I actually think it's pretty good. You absolutely should never be using this ability on your own creatures, unless you are trying to give a darksteel colossus or something flying to get in the last few points of damage. That's why I designed it this way: It was an inverse of the round 1 card, which was designed to be used on your own creatures.
This is not as much a complaint as another argument to allow some design notes for future mcc's. I mean, I am obviously biased, but it seems that MobiusMan understood the ability in the wrong way.
This is more for my own curiosity, but I saw that krynthe got a perfect score with a card similar to my original round 2 submission, which I changed due to my thought of it not being enough of a vertical cycle with the original:
Shimmering Angel 3WW
Creature - Angel
Flying, Iridescent (At the beginning of your upkeep, this card becomes the color of your choice.)
Shimmering Angel has protection from its colors.
3/3
“The shimmering wings shined as to reflect back the animosity of our foes. Not even Baron Sengir could taint us now.”
—Serra
Render:
Do you think this would've made it to the next round? Just wondering to help me out next month.
Sig by XenoNinja of Heroes of the Plane Studios
I have to agree that I think some design notes would help in any challenge where people create new name elements like keywords. I saw a few other reviews of cards that seemed to be based on the idea that the card worked radically different from how I imagined.