I was thinking of House Dimir when making the card. Wanted something to combat the secrecy and deceit represented by those colors, hence making it Green. What could please Green more than having everything laid out on the table where its creatures can come out safely and unhindered?
Make it happen WotC. =)
Interesting take. Looking at hands is overwhelmingly blue, then black, while revealing hands looks to be black, then blue, as far as precedent goes. It does seem like there is an argument to it in green though, with everything being "fair," your side mainly being "these are the huge creatures I will pummel you with" while you can maybe attempt to play around removal or counterspells. Gaining information like this does seem to support control more than beatdown strategies though, as the control player would know exactly what they need to counter or destroy. It's an interesting argument.
The loss of 3.5 points to "setting up a delayed trigger that triggers the instant the ability resolves" seems excessive - especially since there is no delayed trigger because once the ability goes on the stack and isn't responded to, there can be no responding to it and indeed no actions at all can be made until it finishes resolving. Even if there were, I'd like to point out that it's alot easier to modify existing cards which already have the rules technicalities laid out for you than it is to iron out the technicalities of something completely unique. Some of the cards in the batch you got are clearly too strong, so of course they have more appeal to Johnny, Timmy, Spike and got rewarded thusly. Meanwhile the challenge called for something "not too strong but not too weak", yet the same cards received 2/2 for the challenge. I guess my question is, will it help me in the future to ignore the actual terms of a challenge in order to dazzle people with power and to brush up on my modify-an-existing-card skills?
Sincerely,
Frustrated in Virginia
P.S. - 6.5+9+2+3=/=19.5
Should have just gone with:
You may put an Aura card from your hand onto the battlefield attached to target creature. If you do, ~ deals damage to that creature equal to the Aura's converted mana cost.
You did miss the "you may" in your card, as well, so you actually should have lost points in polish. You also don't need to specify "that it could enchant." You cannot put an aura onto a permanent it can't enchant anyway, so stating it in the rules text is redundant.
I also suppose you know (and perhaps intended) that the card could be used to turn auras into creature removal.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Can we have Megiddo removed from the forum forever please?
i'm pretty sure i can find your ***** online within 3 minutes
Should have just gone with:
You may put an Aura card from your hand onto the battlefield attached to target creature. If you do, ~ deals damage to that creature equal to the Aura's converted mana cost.
I like this wording. I think it needs "it could enchant" though.
You did miss the "you may" in your card, as well, so you actually should have lost points in polish.
Ah, yeah, I referred to Auratouched Mage when I should have referred to Academy Researchers. I'd gladly take the same 1 point loss that TANE took for the same mistake in exchange for a judgement based on how the card actually works - which as far as I can tell, is perfectly.
You also don't need to specify "that it could enchant." You cannot put an aura onto a permanent it can't enchant anyway, so stating it in the rules text is redundant.
Sovereigns of Lost Alara refers to an Aura "that could enchant that creature" so I didn't see any problem with including a similar clause on my card, due to any possible confusion it could cause without it. I was imagining a player putting a Genju of the Realm onto an opponent's creature, not expecting it to stick, but expecting it to deal damage to the targeted creature before hitting the graveyard.
I like this wording. I think it needs "it could enchant" though.
It does not.
Ah, yeah, I referred to Auratouched Mage when I should have referred to Academy Researchers. I'd gladly take the same 1 point loss that TANE took for the same mistake in exchange for a judgement based on how the card actually works - which as far as I can tell, is perfectly.
Nobody ever said it didn't work.
Sovereigns of Lost Alara refers to an Aura "that could enchant that creature" so I didn't see any problem with including a similar clause on my card, due to any possible confusion it could cause without it. I was imagining a player putting a Genju of the Realm onto an opponent's creature, not expecting it to stick, but expecting it to deal damage to the targeted creature before hitting the graveyard.
As far as I can tell there's no real need for a distinction, other than that pulling from a public zone or from your library requires the "could enchant" text and pulling from the hand does not. I'm not balls deep into the comp rules like I used to be, so I can't tell you what the distinction is for, though it may have to do with hidden information.
Also, your imagined scenario is impossible, as it is an illegal game action. The aura will never enter the battlefield regardless of what you say on the card.
Thus the flavor text.
ok
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Can we have Megiddo removed from the forum forever please?
i'm pretty sure i can find your ***** online within 3 minutes
But Rithaniel did say it sets "up a delayed trigger that triggers the instant the ability resolves", which is as far as I can tell, incorrect, but the negative aspect of his critique was based on this assumption.
Also, your imagined scenario is impossible, as it is an illegal game action. The aura will never enter the battlefield regardless of what you say on the card.
I know this. You know this. Not everyone knows this.
Regarding the 2nd round, if I understood correctly, who designed multicolored cards for round 1 can add colors. Why can't people who made mono colored add colors?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Trophyless guy.
Thought of the Month: I gave up from trying to require the 'i' on my name: SolesticIo
But Rithaniel did say it sets "up a delayed trigger that triggers the instant the ability resolves", which is as far as I can tell, incorrect, but the negative aspect of his critique was based on this assumption.
As written it is a triggered ability (because it begins with "when"). So, Rithaniel is correct. Your ability does not really make sense as written, and would work better as I wrote it.
I know this. You know this. Not everyone knows this.
Ok. But that doesn't mean you write it on the cards. Save it for the FAQ or rulings.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Can we have Megiddo removed from the forum forever please?
i'm pretty sure i can find your ***** online within 3 minutes
As written it is a triggered ability (because it begins with "when"). So, Rithaniel is correct. Your ability does not really make sense as written, and would work better as I wrote it.
I already conceded that your wording is better. I was originally gonna go with it, but decided I wanted the "projectile" (Aura) to do the damage for flavor. Now I wish I hadn't. Nonetheless, the current wording both makes sense and works as written - even he said "This is easy to understand and gets the concept across nicely." Rithaniel is not correct in thinking it sets up a delayed trigger as it's contained within the activated ability itself and therefore must "resolve" within it, which is what led to the lost points.
EDIT: What's really blowing my mind is the deja vu I'm experiencing from the CCL to the MCC. Ruprecht's Gift got 23/25 when it's virtually copy-and-paste Contaminated Ground, Pooling Venom, or even Stab Wound. Yes, Ruprecht's Gift is a fine card but far from an actual design and hardly "not too bad" as the challenge calls for. Anyways, I'm done ranting. Thanks for your time. I'm moving on.
You did not lose 3.5 points for the delayed trigger. You lost 3.5 points because Timmy doesn't like the card (-1), Spike doesn't like the card (-1), the delayed trigger is inelegant (-1), and the fact that the aura dealt the damage was inelegant (-.5).
Saltskitter has an ability which sets up a delayed trigger. Part of the ability which does not come into play until the stated trigger occurs. In Saltskitter's case, the event is 'at end of turn'. In your card's case, the event is 'when the aura enters the battlefield'.
The issue with elegance was that people would not realize that was the way the card worked. I mean, even you didn't realize that was the way the card worked.
As for the gift aura, it passed because it was a well-designed common. Perhaps it should have lost a point on creativity, but there was nothing else particularly wrong with the card.
Next time, PM your judge if you have issue with a judging.
If you feel any of these games are unfair, don't play them.
Everyone here is a volunteer and I seriously doubt that anyone here has a secret agenda to make this game hell for any other person. Judging is SUBJECTIVE. Look at round 4 of any month and tell me how often any of the judges score a card the same way.
If your judge has a different opinion than you, and this is directed at everyone, it doesn't make you right. It doesn't make them right. It just means your opinions differ. Get over yourself and try again next month. Or hell, judge next month to prove your supremacy. Just stop all the back and forth *****ing, especially in public.
I'm a proud member of the Online Campaign for Real English. If you believe in capital letters, correct spelling, and good sentence structure, then copy this into your signature.
I've been sick the past few days, too much time on my hands, spending too much time online, my mind hasn't been as clear as I imagined, and surely I haven't been in the best of moods either. I'm sorry I came across in such an ugly way. I certainly don't want to kill anything. If I have any more grievances of this nature, I'll pm the person. Hey, Rithaniel, check your pms. jk.
I'm a proud member of the Online Campaign for Real English. If you believe in capital letters, correct spelling, and good sentence structure, then copy this into your signature.
I'm a proud member of the Online Campaign for Real English. If you believe in capital letters, correct spelling, and good sentence structure, then copy this into your signature.
Well, I've got a new job and between that and my internet situation, I won't be getting my judgings in until about noon tomorrow. However, they will be in.
Interesting take. Looking at hands is overwhelmingly blue, then black, while revealing hands looks to be black, then blue, as far as precedent goes. It does seem like there is an argument to it in green though, with everything being "fair," your side mainly being "these are the huge creatures I will pummel you with" while you can maybe attempt to play around removal or counterspells. Gaining information like this does seem to support control more than beatdown strategies though, as the control player would know exactly what they need to counter or destroy. It's an interesting argument.
You may put an Aura card from your hand onto the battlefield attached to target creature. If you do, ~ deals damage to that creature equal to the Aura's converted mana cost.
You did miss the "you may" in your card, as well, so you actually should have lost points in polish. You also don't need to specify "that it could enchant." You cannot put an aura onto a permanent it can't enchant anyway, so stating it in the rules text is redundant.
I also suppose you know (and perhaps intended) that the card could be used to turn auras into creature removal.
I like this wording. I think it needs "it could enchant" though.
Ah, yeah, I referred to Auratouched Mage when I should have referred to Academy Researchers. I'd gladly take the same 1 point loss that TANE took for the same mistake in exchange for a judgement based on how the card actually works - which as far as I can tell, is perfectly.
Sovereigns of Lost Alara refers to an Aura "that could enchant that creature" so I didn't see any problem with including a similar clause on my card, due to any possible confusion it could cause without it. I was imagining a player putting a Genju of the Realm onto an opponent's creature, not expecting it to stick, but expecting it to deal damage to the targeted creature before hitting the graveyard.
Thus the flavor text.
Nobody ever said it didn't work.
As far as I can tell there's no real need for a distinction, other than that pulling from a public zone or from your library requires the "could enchant" text and pulling from the hand does not. I'm not balls deep into the comp rules like I used to be, so I can't tell you what the distinction is for, though it may have to do with hidden information.
Also, your imagined scenario is impossible, as it is an illegal game action. The aura will never enter the battlefield regardless of what you say on the card.
ok
But Rithaniel did say it sets "up a delayed trigger that triggers the instant the ability resolves", which is as far as I can tell, incorrect, but the negative aspect of his critique was based on this assumption.
I know this. You know this. Not everyone knows this.
Thought of the Month:
I gave up from trying to require the 'i' on my name: SolesticIo
Thought of the Month:
I gave up from trying to require the 'i' on my name: SolesticIo
Does this mean that the round 2 card has to be colorless or has a colorless mana symbol in its cost like 2?
Ok. But that doesn't mean you write it on the cards. Save it for the FAQ or rulings.
I already conceded that your wording is better. I was originally gonna go with it, but decided I wanted the "projectile" (Aura) to do the damage for flavor. Now I wish I hadn't. Nonetheless, the current wording both makes sense and works as written - even he said "This is easy to understand and gets the concept across nicely." Rithaniel is not correct in thinking it sets up a delayed trigger as it's contained within the activated ability itself and therefore must "resolve" within it, which is what led to the lost points.
...or Sovereigns of Lost Alara?
EDIT: What's really blowing my mind is the deja vu I'm experiencing from the CCL to the MCC. Ruprecht's Gift got 23/25 when it's virtually copy-and-paste Contaminated Ground, Pooling Venom, or even Stab Wound. Yes, Ruprecht's Gift is a fine card but far from an actual design and hardly "not too bad" as the challenge calls for. Anyways, I'm done ranting. Thanks for your time. I'm moving on.
Don't condescend your judge.
You did not lose 3.5 points for the delayed trigger. You lost 3.5 points because Timmy doesn't like the card (-1), Spike doesn't like the card (-1), the delayed trigger is inelegant (-1), and the fact that the aura dealt the damage was inelegant (-.5).
Saltskitter has an ability which sets up a delayed trigger. Part of the ability which does not come into play until the stated trigger occurs. In Saltskitter's case, the event is 'at end of turn'. In your card's case, the event is 'when the aura enters the battlefield'.
The issue with elegance was that people would not realize that was the way the card worked. I mean, even you didn't realize that was the way the card worked.
As for the gift aura, it passed because it was a well-designed common. Perhaps it should have lost a point on creativity, but there was nothing else particularly wrong with the card.
Next time, PM your judge if you have issue with a judging.
There is no justice in these games.
Apoligies for the lateness.
If you feel any of these games are unfair, don't play them.
Everyone here is a volunteer and I seriously doubt that anyone here has a secret agenda to make this game hell for any other person. Judging is SUBJECTIVE. Look at round 4 of any month and tell me how often any of the judges score a card the same way.
If your judge has a different opinion than you, and this is directed at everyone, it doesn't make you right. It doesn't make them right. It just means your opinions differ. Get over yourself and try again next month. Or hell, judge next month to prove your supremacy. Just stop all the back and forth *****ing, especially in public.
Glorious avatar and signature done by Rivenor at Miraculous Recovery Signatures.
***Former MCC Organizer***
Come join us! Show us your creative side.
I'm a proud member of the Online Campaign for Real English. If you believe in capital letters, correct spelling, and good sentence structure, then copy this into your signature.
I'll say that until I'm blue in the face.
The challenge says it needs to have the same color as your card so the converted mana cost would need to be colorless.
Glorious avatar and signature done by Rivenor at Miraculous Recovery Signatures.
***Former MCC Organizer***
Come join us! Show us your creative side.
I'm a proud member of the Online Campaign for Real English. If you believe in capital letters, correct spelling, and good sentence structure, then copy this into your signature.
My apologies, this was a ridiculous week for me and I totally forgot to finish my card. Thanks for critiquing the stuff I had though.
Junk Tokens WBG
Also my judgings are up.
Questions, complaints, comments? PM me please.
Glorious avatar and signature done by Rivenor at Miraculous Recovery Signatures.
***Former MCC Organizer***
Come join us! Show us your creative side.
I'm a proud member of the Online Campaign for Real English. If you believe in capital letters, correct spelling, and good sentence structure, then copy this into your signature.
I love it when the judge gives me a much higher score than I'd give myself.
[Clan Flamingo] Tier Archivist
[15:21] <@CC> Remember, if you argue, you are an idiot.
Untrophied Wins:
Perfect MCC Scores: 2
---------------------------------------------------------------