Ok, well Zzapper hasn't been on since March, so it looks like we'll skip to Kiwi, unless he wants to let Maokun do it. Then brasil_dude101 will take September, and maybe Maokun for October?
We'll see how it goes this month before committing to October I'll make some preparations and have the thread up as soon as possible (which might be tomorrow)
I'm calling it right now- worst rare in the set. Even good limited players will find better bombs at common and uncommon no sweat. Worst. Episode. Ever.
I really do predict this to be our worst rare in set award winner. I'd be happier opening a jar of eyeballs, so I think anything worse is highly unlikely. This card wont just have zero constructed potential, but not be significantly better than a mass of ghouls in a draft.
I'm calling it right now- worst rare in the set. Even good limited players will find better bombs at common and uncommon no sweat. Worst. Episode. Ever.
I really do predict this to be our worst rare in set award winner. I'd be happier opening a jar of eyeballs, so I think anything worse is highly unlikely. This card wont just have zero constructed potential, but not be significantly better than a mass of ghouls in a draft.
Kinda wish we had the whole planes at our disposal, but part of Ravnica is better than no Ravnica, right?
Just kidding. I'm sure whatever you have planned, using those specific Plane cards will be more than enough. Can't wait.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Ninja Caterpie »
I expect with this [Transform] mechanic that everyone playing a Werewolf tribal deck will say "Autobots, rollout!" whenever the majority of their army transforms.
Important: Clarification on bonus points -Bonus points only will be awarded to participants that fulfill the optional requirements AND got in the top 3 of their team.
Why? Optional Requirements are meant to make more difficult the task of making a good card. (especially, fulfill both, as I try to make them slightly mutually exclusive.)
So, if attempting to fulfill all the requirements, you get an horrendous card, you won't get votes nor you'll get bonus points. You'll have to decide if increasing the complexity and verbosity of your card is worth a chance of a bonus point.
Perhaps more important: I have skimmed over the submissions and I think I'll stress that there must be a mechanical tie between your land and your chosen plane. Also, let be this my chance to say that when I say "plane" I mean "plane card" without regards to the flavor of that plane, which you are free to incorporate as long as your cards remain mechanically tied.
I apologize if I've caused some confusion. Please feel free to ask anything you think is not clear yet.
I'm calling it right now- worst rare in the set. Even good limited players will find better bombs at common and uncommon no sweat. Worst. Episode. Ever.
I really do predict this to be our worst rare in set award winner. I'd be happier opening a jar of eyeballs, so I think anything worse is highly unlikely. This card wont just have zero constructed potential, but not be significantly better than a mass of ghouls in a draft.
Can someone look over my card and let me know if my card works the way I think it does? The way I intended: Sac a creature, you get WB, it taps, then untaps as the ability resolves.
I jus t answered this in a private message, and I'll put it here too for people wondering the same. As the second optional requirement is worded ("must ...") the land must be able to produce more than one mana, unconditionally most of the time. I.e. If to produce more than one mana, another resource is needed besides tapping, you should use resources that are available to you most of the time, like life, mana and cards in your hand. Cards that rely on premium resources or on certain states of the board/game to produce additional mana, won't be considered for bonus points.
I'm calling it right now- worst rare in the set. Even good limited players will find better bombs at common and uncommon no sweat. Worst. Episode. Ever.
I really do predict this to be our worst rare in set award winner. I'd be happier opening a jar of eyeballs, so I think anything worse is highly unlikely. This card wont just have zero constructed potential, but not be significantly better than a mass of ghouls in a draft.
@Maokun: By saying that certain board/game states don't count, you're nullifying any reason to have several teams work mechanically with their Planechase cards for the bonus.
Otaria enables flashback, or grants extra turns. So, if I can't "rely" on being able to flashback a sorcery or instant, working mechanically with my "Plane" wouldn't be in contention for bonus points?
Agyrem and Murasa require creatures to trigger. According to your criteria, that relies on certain a game/board state, and so wouldn't be considered.
Just a little confused as to the conflicting information here. Working mechanically with the Planechase card is required, but employing the mechanics for a reason to produce more than one mana goes against the bonus?
"more than two" was a typo. Please edit that part from your post to avoid confusing others.
As for the second issue: I'll remind you that the optional requirements are optional and intently made obtuse so both meeting it and ending with a good card is a feat worthy of bonus punctuation; otherwise, every single person would do it as it were a normal requirement, only that it gets them additional points.
In other words, yeah, you are to work with the mechanics of your plane e.g. Sacrificing creatures in feeding grounds. But you are not required to make that mechanical tie the base for your attempts to meet the optional requirements. You can try, of course. Here's an example of my own of how it may be made:
Devouring Fields
Land (R)
~ enters the battlefield tapped with 2 charge counters on it. T, remove a charge counter from ~: add RG to your mana pool.
Sacrifice a creature: Put a charge counter on ~. Play as a sorcery.
So the land produces two mana by its own merits, but the mechanical tie to the plane enables it.
I'm calling it right now- worst rare in the set. Even good limited players will find better bombs at common and uncommon no sweat. Worst. Episode. Ever.
I really do predict this to be our worst rare in set award winner. I'd be happier opening a jar of eyeballs, so I think anything worse is highly unlikely. This card wont just have zero constructed potential, but not be significantly better than a mass of ghouls in a draft.
As the second optional requirement is worded ("must ...") the land must be able to produce more than one mana, unconditionally most of the time. I.e. If to produce more than one mana, another resource is needed besides tapping, you should use resources that are available to you most of the time, like life, mana and cards in your hand. Cards that rely on premium resources or on certain states of the board/game to produce additional mana, won't be considered for bonus points.
I like the idea of the bonus points, but this is really not a good way to do them, in my opinion. Who decides what's a 'premium' resource and what counts as something you'll have 'most of the time'? And more importantly, can that decision be shown to be being made fairly and without bias?
This isn't clear, and will lead to people thinking they qualify for the points who might not get them if you disagree, and both sides could have good arguments, since it's subjective.
If you're going to be awarding bonus points for meeting criteria, then please, you really need to make the criteria objectively clear so people can at least all know what they'll be judged to be. Otherwise you're going to get people feeling the judging of which ones were able to produce multiple mana 'most of the time' were inconsistent and/or unfair, and there's no benefit to that - it'll just lead to bad feelings and resentment.
In the case of something like this, you could either make a specific list of which resources you consider players will have 'most of the time' so that people know whether their submissions meet the criteria or not, although in this case I think it'd be better if you just counted any land which is able to produce multiple mana since the requirement as written only specified that saying nothing about being able to do it 'most of the time' or only using specific resources, and many people have made their entries with that in mind. Not everyone has time to check to forums on a daily basis, so there are probably some people who won't find your explanation of what you wanted it to mean until after the round ends, and will miss out on points because of it.
2. It must add more than one mana to your mana pool
A land with "T, Sacrifice two creatures: Add BBBB to your mana pool" clearly fits the requirement as it's worded, but your post makes it sound like you wouldn't let it qualify because it requires you to have multiple creatures - in which case the fault isn't with the land not meeting the requirement, but with the requirement not actually specifying everything you wanted it to. I think this could well lead to a lot of ill-feeling amongst the entrants in how the bonus points are awarded, since the clarification came so late in the round and there's a good chance that some people won't see it on time.
Don't get me wrong, I like the idea here, and I know that running something like this means you're putting in a lot of work (thanks for that), but I think you need to be careful to make sure the requirements for bonus points are clearly spelled out so that people understand what they are.
I'm a little wary of the bonus points as well. Using the planes is interesting, but we need to be sure to allow for a lot of mechanical space; it's hard on the designers and the judges if everybody's cards are really similar.
Another quick request, if you could card link the planes in the first post, it would be great for reference. Thanks
I was thinking about it and found the perfect way to fix possible misunderstandings: since I'm just a host and no judge, the judges should be the ones to give the verdict. In other words: during critiques round, you'll be asked to state whether you think each of your top 3 players fulfilled the optional requirements. Then, if the majority of people that placed a player in the top 3 agree, that player will receive he bonus point(s). If a player made no top 3s, he or she will not be eligible for bonus points at all.
As for links to the plane cards, they appear in each team's name in the first post.
I'm calling it right now- worst rare in the set. Even good limited players will find better bombs at common and uncommon no sweat. Worst. Episode. Ever.
I really do predict this to be our worst rare in set award winner. I'd be happier opening a jar of eyeballs, so I think anything worse is highly unlikely. This card wont just have zero constructed potential, but not be significantly better than a mass of ghouls in a draft.
I was thinking about it and found the perfect way to fix possible misunderstandings: since I'm just a host and no judge, the judges should be the ones to give the verdict. In other words: during critiques round, you'll be asked to state whether you think each of your top 3 players fulfilled the optional requirements. Then, if the majority of people that placed a player in the top 3 agree, that player will receive he bonus point(s). If a player made no top 3s, he or she will not be eligible for bonus points at all.
As for links to the plane cards, they appear in each team's name in the first post.
That's a really good solution, actually. Nice.
I have to say, I'm really interested to see where you're going with the plane thing this month. Seems like it's going to be really fun.
I have to say that a lot of people missed big time the flavor of the challenge, not making their land seem like something at the genesis of the plane. I guess I should have made it mandatory in the challenge but it was already quite complex.
I'm calling it right now- worst rare in the set. Even good limited players will find better bombs at common and uncommon no sweat. Worst. Episode. Ever.
I really do predict this to be our worst rare in set award winner. I'd be happier opening a jar of eyeballs, so I think anything worse is highly unlikely. This card wont just have zero constructed potential, but not be significantly better than a mass of ghouls in a draft.
If we meet one of the bonus challenges but not the other, we still qualify for one bonus point, right? I mean, we don't have to fulfill both bonus challenges to get points at all?
@Maokun: Welcome to the trickiest part of running a CCL: getting your idea across. When you put the challenge out there, you have an idea of what kinds of cards you expect to see. The results don't always match up. Look at your original instructions.
Design a land, with one or more abilities that reflect or adapt the ones in the plane you chose.
Mandatory requirements:
1. It must be legendary
2. it must add mana of one or more colors (that make sense to the abilities of the plane.)
Optional Requirements (meeting each of these will grant you a bonus point at the end of the round if you are at least in a top 3) :
1. It must NOT enter the battlefield tapped
2. It must add more than one mana to your mana pool
You said it had to match the Plane, not the Planechase card. You never mention a mechanical link. I'm not trying to be negative here; just pointing out a few cautions. If you're looking to push design in a specific direction, you have to clarify your ideas a little more. I had to do it more than a few times last month, and I tried to be as specific as possible.
Just like the game itself, everyone approaches it from a different angle. You have to take the people that like perpendicular angles into consideration.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
May your games be chaotic and your decks be Rogue.
If we meet one of the bonus challenges but not the other, we still qualify for one bonus point, right? I mean, we don't have to fulfill both bonus challenges to get points at all?
Correct. Meet one of the optional challenges, get 1 bonus point; meet both, get two.
@Maokun: Welcome to the trickiest part of running a CCL: getting your idea across. When you put the challenge out there, you have an idea of what kinds of cards you expect to see. The results don't always match up. Look at your original instructions.
You said it had to match the Plane, not the Planechase card. You never mention a mechanical link. I'm not trying to be negative here; just pointing out a few cautions. If you're looking to push design in a specific direction, you have to clarify your ideas a little more. I had to do it more than a few times last month, and I tried to be as specific as possible.
Just like the game itself, everyone approaches it from a different angle. You have to take the people that like perpendicular angles into consideration.
Yeah, I guess you're right. In my mind it was quite clear: I gave you Planechase cards to choose from in round 0, and I continued to use the name of those cards wherever else and never the represented Plane names such as Zendikar or Ravnica.
Also, the first line of the description of the challenge read: "Design a land, with one or more abilities that reflect or adapt the ones in the plane you chose." Note that it called back to the plane "you chose" and mentioned its "abilities" which were what you had to work with. I guess the use of the word "plane" was ambiguous but in my defense, that's the technical name of that card type.
Moreover, the challenges in the CCL are more times than not about making a card(s) that interacts with the /card(s)/ from the previous round.
I'll try to be more specific in the next rounds, though.
I'm calling it right now- worst rare in the set. Even good limited players will find better bombs at common and uncommon no sweat. Worst. Episode. Ever.
I really do predict this to be our worst rare in set award winner. I'd be happier opening a jar of eyeballs, so I think anything worse is highly unlikely. This card wont just have zero constructed potential, but not be significantly better than a mass of ghouls in a draft.
Just curious, what made you decide on those four particular planes? Based on precedent I would have expected a choice of any Plane (card), or possibly designing a Plane card as your avatar for the month. No problem of course, and I'm sure it will be interesting if there's a story brewing involving these specific location, but the choices seemed a little random, mostly since three of them are from established settings and one is from a barely mentioned plane.
It seemed to me that no one on Team Otaria understand exactly what Maokun had wanted to get across when it came to the theme on designing the land.
I think what should be done in later rounds is group the requirements AND the theme together in a section somewhere in the first post, like "Your challenge is:" and you give the theme they have to capture as well and the mandatory and bonus details or something. Huh, so you did. My bad for forgetting. I guess it is mostly our fault for not seeing the small description of the challenge.
Oh, and that's another thing. I think that's what confused a lot of people, was that the lands being legendary and producing mana being the only mandatory requirements. I think they should be referred to as details or something, and the little description given after the scenario paragraph(s) be the requirement.
I do think its mostly our fault for either not reading the whole post, or not reading it carefully enough to fully understand the challenge, but I also think the challenge for the actual card design should be easier to locate.
I expect with this [Transform] mechanic that everyone playing a Werewolf tribal deck will say "Autobots, rollout!" whenever the majority of their army transforms.
It seemed to me that no one on Team Otaria understand exactly what Maokun had wanted to get across when it came to the theme on designing the land.
I think what should be done in later rounds is group the requirements AND the theme together in a section somewhere in the first post, like "Your challenge is:" and you give the theme they have to capture as well and the mandatory and bonus details or something. Huh, so you did. My bad for forgetting. I guess it is mostly our fault for not seeing the small description of the challenge.
Oh, and that's another thing. I think that's what confused a lot of people, was that the lands being legendary and producing mana being the only mandatory requirements. I think they should be referred to as details or something, and the little description given after the scenario paragraph(s) be the requirement.
I do think its mostly our fault for either not reading the whole post, or not reading it carefully enough to fully understand the challenge, but I also think the challenge for the actual card design should be easier to locate.
Just my two cents.
Wait I'm confused - is there something I did wrong?
Wait I'm confused - is there something I did wrong?
EDIT: I'm on Team Otaria btw, just curious
Well, kinda yeah. But your whole team was kind of at fault, along with Maokun a bit.
It seemed people just got confused as to what the actual requirements were. A lot of people seemed to miss the part in the Round 1 thread where it said (just above the mandatory requirements) "Design a land, with one or more abilities that reflect or adapt the ones in the plane you chose". Not just you, but your team as a whole seemed to design lands that weren't really reflecting or adapting the abilities on Otaria so much as designing them to be synergistic with it, as if the plane card was in play, and this legendary land would accompany it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Ninja Caterpie »
I expect with this [Transform] mechanic that everyone playing a Werewolf tribal deck will say "Autobots, rollout!" whenever the majority of their army transforms.
Well, kinda yeah. But your whole team was kind of at fault, along with Maokun a bit.
It seemed people just got confused as to what the actual requirements were. A lot of people seemed to miss the part in the Round 1 thread where it said (just above the mandatory requirements) "Design a land, with one or more abilities that reflect or adapt the ones in the plane you chose". Not just you, but your team as a whole seemed to design lands that weren't really reflecting or adapting the abilities on Otaria so much as designing them to be synergistic with it, as if the plane card was in play, and this legendary land would accompany it.
Oh I see. Thanks for clearing up the confusion xP
I was wondering if we were to assume the plane was in effect. I tried to make my card be okay in both ways but I wasn't sure.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
My First (And Probably Only) MCC Perfect Score: December 09 (Round One)
[Clan Flamingo] Tier Archivist
[15:21] <@CC> Remember, if you argue, you are an idiot.
Untrophied Wins:
Perfect MCC Scores: 2
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kinda wish we had the whole planes at our disposal, but part of Ravnica is better than no Ravnica, right?
Just kidding. I'm sure whatever you have planned, using those specific Plane cards will be more than enough. Can't wait.
Amazing banners made by Brofaux.
Why? Optional Requirements are meant to make more difficult the task of making a good card. (especially, fulfill both, as I try to make them slightly mutually exclusive.)
So, if attempting to fulfill all the requirements, you get an horrendous card, you won't get votes nor you'll get bonus points. You'll have to decide if increasing the complexity and verbosity of your card is worth a chance of a bonus point.
Perhaps more important: I have skimmed over the submissions and I think I'll stress that there must be a mechanical tie between your land and your chosen plane. Also, let be this my chance to say that when I say "plane" I mean "plane card" without regards to the flavor of that plane, which you are free to incorporate as long as your cards remain mechanically tied.
I apologize if I've caused some confusion. Please feel free to ask anything you think is not clear yet.
Otaria enables flashback, or grants extra turns. So, if I can't "rely" on being able to flashback a sorcery or instant, working mechanically with my "Plane" wouldn't be in contention for bonus points?
Agyrem and Murasa require creatures to trigger. According to your criteria, that relies on certain a game/board state, and so wouldn't be considered.
Just a little confused as to the conflicting information here. Working mechanically with the Planechase card is required, but employing the mechanics for a reason to produce more than one mana goes against the bonus?
As for the second issue: I'll remind you that the optional requirements are optional and intently made obtuse so both meeting it and ending with a good card is a feat worthy of bonus punctuation; otherwise, every single person would do it as it were a normal requirement, only that it gets them additional points.
In other words, yeah, you are to work with the mechanics of your plane e.g. Sacrificing creatures in feeding grounds. But you are not required to make that mechanical tie the base for your attempts to meet the optional requirements. You can try, of course. Here's an example of my own of how it may be made:
Devouring Fields
Land (R)
~ enters the battlefield tapped with 2 charge counters on it.
T, remove a charge counter from ~: add RG to your mana pool.
Sacrifice a creature: Put a charge counter on ~. Play as a sorcery.
So the land produces two mana by its own merits, but the mechanical tie to the plane enables it.
I like the idea of the bonus points, but this is really not a good way to do them, in my opinion. Who decides what's a 'premium' resource and what counts as something you'll have 'most of the time'? And more importantly, can that decision be shown to be being made fairly and without bias?
This isn't clear, and will lead to people thinking they qualify for the points who might not get them if you disagree, and both sides could have good arguments, since it's subjective.
If you're going to be awarding bonus points for meeting criteria, then please, you really need to make the criteria objectively clear so people can at least all know what they'll be judged to be. Otherwise you're going to get people feeling the judging of which ones were able to produce multiple mana 'most of the time' were inconsistent and/or unfair, and there's no benefit to that - it'll just lead to bad feelings and resentment.
In the case of something like this, you could either make a specific list of which resources you consider players will have 'most of the time' so that people know whether their submissions meet the criteria or not, although in this case I think it'd be better if you just counted any land which is able to produce multiple mana since the requirement as written only specified that saying nothing about being able to do it 'most of the time' or only using specific resources, and many people have made their entries with that in mind. Not everyone has time to check to forums on a daily basis, so there are probably some people who won't find your explanation of what you wanted it to mean until after the round ends, and will miss out on points because of it.
The requirement as written in the thread is: A land with "T, Sacrifice two creatures: Add BBBB to your mana pool" clearly fits the requirement as it's worded, but your post makes it sound like you wouldn't let it qualify because it requires you to have multiple creatures - in which case the fault isn't with the land not meeting the requirement, but with the requirement not actually specifying everything you wanted it to. I think this could well lead to a lot of ill-feeling amongst the entrants in how the bonus points are awarded, since the clarification came so late in the round and there's a good chance that some people won't see it on time.
Don't get me wrong, I like the idea here, and I know that running something like this means you're putting in a lot of work (thanks for that), but I think you need to be careful to make sure the requirements for bonus points are clearly spelled out so that people understand what they are.
Another quick request, if you could card link the planes in the first post, it would be great for reference. Thanks
As for links to the plane cards, they appear in each team's name in the first post.
That's a really good solution, actually. Nice.
I have to say, I'm really interested to see where you're going with the plane thing this month. Seems like it's going to be really fun.
You said it had to match the Plane, not the Planechase card. You never mention a mechanical link. I'm not trying to be negative here; just pointing out a few cautions. If you're looking to push design in a specific direction, you have to clarify your ideas a little more. I had to do it more than a few times last month, and I tried to be as specific as possible.
Just like the game itself, everyone approaches it from a different angle. You have to take the people that like perpendicular angles into consideration.
Correct. Meet one of the optional challenges, get 1 bonus point; meet both, get two.
Yeah, I guess you're right. In my mind it was quite clear: I gave you Planechase cards to choose from in round 0, and I continued to use the name of those cards wherever else and never the represented Plane names such as Zendikar or Ravnica.
Also, the first line of the description of the challenge read: "Design a land, with one or more abilities that reflect or adapt the ones in the plane you chose." Note that it called back to the plane "you chose" and mentioned its "abilities" which were what you had to work with. I guess the use of the word "plane" was ambiguous but in my defense, that's the technical name of that card type.
Moreover, the challenges in the CCL are more times than not about making a card(s) that interacts with the /card(s)/ from the previous round.
I'll try to be more specific in the next rounds, though.
It seemed to me that no one on Team Otaria understand exactly what Maokun had wanted to get across when it came to the theme on designing the land.
I think what should be done in later rounds is group the requirements AND the theme together in a section somewhere in the first post, like "Your challenge is:" and you give the theme they have to capture as well and the mandatory and bonus details or something.Huh, so you did. My bad for forgetting. I guess it is mostly our fault for not seeing the small description of the challenge.Oh, and that's another thing. I think that's what confused a lot of people, was that the lands being legendary and producing mana being the only mandatory requirements. I think they should be referred to as details or something, and the little description given after the scenario paragraph(s) be the requirement.
I do think its mostly our fault for either not reading the whole post, or not reading it carefully enough to fully understand the challenge, but I also think the challenge for the actual card design should be easier to locate.
Just my two cents.
Amazing banners made by Brofaux.
Wait I'm confused - is there something I did wrong?
EDIT: I'm on Team Otaria btw, just curious
Well, kinda yeah. But your whole team was kind of at fault, along with Maokun a bit.
It seemed people just got confused as to what the actual requirements were. A lot of people seemed to miss the part in the Round 1 thread where it said (just above the mandatory requirements) "Design a land, with one or more abilities that reflect or adapt the ones in the plane you chose". Not just you, but your team as a whole seemed to design lands that weren't really reflecting or adapting the abilities on Otaria so much as designing them to be synergistic with it, as if the plane card was in play, and this legendary land would accompany it.
Amazing banners made by Brofaux.
Oh I see. Thanks for clearing up the confusion xP
I was wondering if we were to assume the plane was in effect. I tried to make my card be okay in both ways but I wasn't sure.