Edit: I'd like to try my hand at hosting the CCL sometime. How do I get on the list?
Gerrard's Mom's in charge of that. I would like to be on the CCL hosting list after you, shadowfuryix. I seem to recall that the list was pretty long, but that's okay, I don't mind the wait.
(Asrama missed July, and Zzapper doesn't seem to be around to take September.)
Please let me know if that doesn't look right to you. I went back through half the thread to check who made claims, but I may have missed something.
I know I previously said that I didn't want October, but my schedule is lookingt much too hectic for me take on September, so if I could get bumped down (?), it'd be great.
Jeez, this deadline seemed to creep up on me much quicker than the last one it seemed..
Well for the most part its done, but hopefully its enough for the judges. Gotta make some last minute touch ups most likely...
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.
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've got an idea I can work with, but I haven't typed anything up yet. Seeing as I'm meant to be last on the list, I'll let everyone before me have a chance to host first. If it turns out everyone is busy or preoccupied next month, I suppose I could get something up and running by the end of the month.
Well, meaning that is up to the critics to decide whether they allow it or not. Fir what I saw past round, though, critics were quite forgiving.
As for your round submission, I can see at least two ways you could solve your dilemma (and even get one of the bonus points.) I'm sure you'll find a way.
The only way for me to achieve A SINGLE bonus point is to do something lame like "Put X type X tokens onto the battlefield. Landfall — put twice as many instead."
WOO. :\
The bonus points aren't *really* bonus points, since if you don't get them, you're falling behind as much as if you don't top 3. They're effectively required points, and unfortunately, you've set up the challenge in such a way that I can't get those required points.
I definitely can't host October, November, or December, but I already have several ideas hashed out and ready to go for future CCLs, so I can easily run September if it becomes necessary.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Suffer the little creatures, for they may yet rise up and beat you senseless."
No, paradigm, they aren't alike required points. They don't go into the grading equation, they are added at the end. Also, they are tailored to be difficult to get (especially both) for everyone. They are not custom made diabolical to thwart specifically you and only you. Also note that if you meet them but you don't top 3, you won't get any points.
Bonus points are supposed to be an additional challenge. Some will get them and some will not. The ones who get them will rightly have earned them. Also, what's wrong with the card you propose? It's powerful and neat. Sure, it's not going to change Magic forever... but then again, we're talking of a common/uncommon card. Utilitarian design is more than correct given the circumstances.
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.
FINALLY finished my critiques for round 2. I seriously dont know why it took me so long.
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.
One of the cards says "equals the damage that would be dealt to target creature you control this turn.". As I stated in my judging, I've recently had a complication regarding that situation and need some clarification to give a decent assessment of the submission.
In what situations can you use the term 'would' and what other words HAVE to be used with it to make the phrase not break any rules?
Take a look at Megiddo's WiJ thread, from page 354 onwards for that competition to see what I'm talking about. There was a discussion on how to make my entry work, and it came up about using the term 'would' to look into the future of the game to determine things and how this isn't allowed.
Any clarification will be greatly appreciated.
EDIT: Sorry, from page 356 onwards. Specifically Sir Aureus's post.
EDIT2: And yeah, my entry this round was sorta weak. I haven't had much time here. Met a dame and have been appropriately distracted.
"Would" is used for replacement effects which often also contain the word "instead" (or an instruction to cancel the effect such as "prevent",) as the effect that was going to take change is replaced with another but a certain value is is carried through the conversion.
Monkey's card is a bit confusing in its wording. It either doesn't need that "would" at all, or he was meaning to have the token receive the damage instead of the original creature on which damage was marked.
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.
Yeah, rememeber Kamigawa: even things like sensations, the moon phase, bushes, etc had a related kami (spirit). White spirit tokens usually are just another variant on saprolings and carry little flavor context.
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.
While I did try with the name and to a lesser extent the flavour text to imply my spirits were non-sentient - more like wisps of living energy than thinking beings -in the end it has to come down to the judge's discretion.
@shadowfuryix, yeah, they really should have had flying. Not sure how I failed to do that, really - it's so obvious.
And yeah, I completely failed to include a rarity. I intended it to be uncommon because you don't want too many of them floating around in limited, where they won't always do anything.
The thing I'm finding interesting in some of the critiques I've been reading is a lack of mention regarding the "mechanical tie-in" between the R1 Land and the R2 Sorcery/Instant. I'm just wondering how many of the other players are checking this before they rate the cards.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
May your games be chaotic and your decks be Rogue.
While I did try with the name and to a lesser extent the flavour text to imply my spirits were non-sentient - more like wisps of living energy than thinking beings -in the end it has to come down to the judge's discretion.
Yar I tried to do the same thing with my nephilims, saying they were kind of programmed to protect Yorem (my land) but were really just some kind of feral beast. Clearly I did not get that across.
It was really hard to come up with a good creature for agyrem that felt like it belonged to my card, oh well did my best with a really hard constraint.
The thing I'm finding interesting in some of the critiques I've been reading is a lack of mention regarding the "mechanical tie-in" between the R1 Land and the R2 Sorcery/Instant. I'm just wondering how many of the other players are checking this before they rate the cards.
I checked them all before hand to be sure they tied in mechanically, all of the feeding grounds cards did fairly well in that aspect. I was planning to make a specific note if someone failed at that, maybe thats what other people are doing as well.
I cant remember if I mentioned the mechanical tie to their previous cards in my judgings, but I most definitely took them into account. My critiques can sometimes throw people off. I can seem like I absolutely hate the card just by the shear amount of criticism I give, but in the end give it a higher score than most.
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.
Just so you know, the sentient/non-sentient thing in this round was really upto the judges preception of your card. As such, it had a very small weighting on my judging (themost horrendously sentient being would have knocked you back at most one point). None of the points lost this round prevented anyone from getting into my top 3 either.
@MagicBrains: Just so you know, sentient and sapient are two different words with two different meanings. The requirement is non-sapient.
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.
Amazing banners made by Brofaux.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Aug: Maokun
Sep: brasil_dude101
Oct: Rocket_Powered_Turbo_Slug
Nov: MDenham
Dec: Twilight Kiwi
Jan: shadowfuryix
Feb: Jau
(Asrama missed July, and Zzapper doesn't seem to be around to take September.)
Please let me know if that doesn't look right to you. I went back through half the thread to check who made claims, but I may have missed something.
My First (And Probably Only) MCC Perfect Score: December 09 (Round One)
(Probably NSFW) So you may have heard I'm trying to write a TV series...
Most Nominated for Random Categories, 2013
Sep: Rocket_Powered_Turbo_Slug
Oct: brasil_dude101
Nov: shadowfuryix
Dec: MDenham
Jan: Twilight Kiwi
Feb: Jau
... would work?
My First (And Probably Only) MCC Perfect Score: December 09 (Round One)
Well for the most part its done, but hopefully its enough for the judges. Gotta make some last minute touch ups most likely...
Amazing banners made by Brofaux.
The only way for me to achieve A SINGLE bonus point is to do something lame like "Put X type X tokens onto the battlefield. Landfall — put twice as many instead."
WOO. :\
The bonus points aren't *really* bonus points, since if you don't get them, you're falling behind as much as if you don't top 3. They're effectively required points, and unfortunately, you've set up the challenge in such a way that I can't get those required points.
My First (And Probably Only) MCC Perfect Score: December 09 (Round One)
Bonus points are supposed to be an additional challenge. Some will get them and some will not. The ones who get them will rightly have earned them. Also, what's wrong with the card you propose? It's powerful and neat. Sure, it's not going to change Magic forever... but then again, we're talking of a common/uncommon card. Utilitarian design is more than correct given the circumstances.
I think this is true of most English-speakers. It's just such an unintuitive name...
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
Amazing banners made by Brofaux.
One of the cards says "equals the damage that would be dealt to target creature you control this turn.". As I stated in my judging, I've recently had a complication regarding that situation and need some clarification to give a decent assessment of the submission.
In what situations can you use the term 'would' and what other words HAVE to be used with it to make the phrase not break any rules?
Take a look at Megiddo's WiJ thread, from page 354 onwards for that competition to see what I'm talking about. There was a discussion on how to make my entry work, and it came up about using the term 'would' to look into the future of the game to determine things and how this isn't allowed.
Any clarification will be greatly appreciated.
EDIT: Sorry, from page 356 onwards. Specifically Sir Aureus's post.
EDIT2: And yeah, my entry this round was sorta weak. I haven't had much time here. Met a dame and have been appropriately distracted.
This is for me more than it is for anyone else. I sucks at colors.
Monkey's card is a bit confusing in its wording. It either doesn't need that "would" at all, or he was meaning to have the token receive the damage instead of the original creature on which damage was marked.
I swear, the critiques are getting WORSE and WORSE every month that goes by.
@shadowfuryix, yeah, they really should have had flying. Not sure how I failed to do that, really - it's so obvious.
And yeah, I completely failed to include a rarity. I intended it to be uncommon because you don't want too many of them floating around in limited, where they won't always do anything.
Yar I tried to do the same thing with my nephilims, saying they were kind of programmed to protect Yorem (my land) but were really just some kind of feral beast. Clearly I did not get that across.
It was really hard to come up with a good creature for agyrem that felt like it belonged to my card, oh well did my best with a really hard constraint.
I checked them all before hand to be sure they tied in mechanically, all of the feeding grounds cards did fairly well in that aspect. I was planning to make a specific note if someone failed at that, maybe thats what other people are doing as well.
Amazing banners made by Brofaux.
This is for me more than it is for anyone else. I sucks at colors.
Amazing banners made by Brofaux.