Just so you know, sentient and sapient are two different words with two different meanings. The requirement is non-sapient.
Yar I was aiming for non-sapient but defiantly sentient in my card, but like magicbrain said its really going to be up to the judges for this requirement.
I'm sorry guys, I didn't expect this challenge to be so divisive or hard to meet. I just wanted you to represent in cards the spread of the first higher life-forms in a prehistoric plane. :/
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.
What the **** does mechanical tie mean if "whenever a land enters the battlefield" doesn't relate to "Whenever a land enters the battlefield"??
I swear, the critiques are getting WORSE and WORSE every month that goes by.
I don't think it's the result of poor critiquing; from the looks of things, the problem arose because some of us interpreted "mechanical tie" to mean that the spell should combo or have synergy with the land, while others (myself included) took it to mean they should share a theme (landfall, in your case). Personally I think both approaches are valid for the challenge, and am critiquing accordingly.
Maokun, don't stress too much about these kinds of clarity issues or clashes in understanding. They're bound to crop up from time to time with such a diverse array of competitors.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Suffer the little creatures, for they may yet rise up and beat you senseless."
I'm sorry guys, I didn't expect this challenge to be so divisive or hard to meet. I just wanted you to represent in cards the spread of the first higher life-forms in a prehistoric plane. :/
I liked the challenge. It was challenging. Keep it up. People just aren't used to working on cards with real restrictions. this is obviously just my opinion, but I hope the next round presents as much of a challenge as this one did.
The theme of this round was great and added much flavor. Its oool - we showed up in some mysterious land and met the first creatures there. (unfortunately for my guy he met some stupid hydras that were totally bass acwards)
*fume* Well, it wasn't the tokens that got the top 3 their spots, but I'll go rejigger the points. My bad - I obviously read it as sentient.
Oh its fine, really. I wasnt mad or anything, just pointing it out. I really dont mind not getting a top 3, though it'd be nice.
@Moakun: I can see how people can get a little confused, but I dont see why. Although there's some places where you can be a little more clear, for the most part I've understood you and your challenge requirements quite easily.
@Paradigm Entity: While I agree that your card does have (in my opinion) enough to be considered a "mechanical tie" to your legendary land, how else do you see the critiques you're getting as being "full of retardation"?
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 may have missed this, but have we established a formal definition for "mechanical tie"? I have a feeling that this requirement will be reflected in future rounds this month, and I'd like to make sure I know what we're supposed to shoot for.
When I say mechanical tie I simply mean that there must be a clearly visible relation between the cards. Either by comboing together or by having similar abilities. I mean, hasn't the CCL always been like that.
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.
Rudyard
I don't know if it should do both, and it should maybe be rare. Maybe it would be too hard to word, but it would be cool if it just took the difference between your life total at the start of the turn and when played, then gave you lifelink guys if you are down or flying (deathtouch?) guys if you are up.
I considered deathtouch but was afraid that'd be too powerful.
How about this:
"If your life total is higher than it was as this turn began, put a number of 1/1 white Spirit creature tokens with flying onto the battlefield equal to the difference.
If your life total is lower than it was as this turn began, put a number of 1/1 black Spirit creature tokens with lifelink onto the battlefield equal to the difference."
or more simply this:
"Put a number of 1/1 black and white Spirit creature tokens onto the battlefield equal to the difference between your current life total and what your life total was as this turn began." with flying or something?
I'm sorry guys, I didn't expect this challenge to be so divisive or hard to meet. I just wanted you to represent in cards the spread of the first higher life-forms in a prehistoric plane. :/
'Twas a great idea, and I wish I'd given it more thought. Speaking for myself, it was easier to just latch onto the material provided by the plane card than to invent a deep past whole cloth. Now it's a little late and my course is limited by what I've already done.
When I say mechanical tie I simply mean that there must be a clearly visible relation between the cards. Either by comboing together or by having similar abilities. I mean, hasn't the CCL always been like that.
I thought so as well, but one of my critiques got me questioning as to whether or not my understanding was correct. Thanks for the clarification.
Do we really have to be stuck making creature cards? Cause I can totally do it if I wasn't stuck with that requirements since saprolings are pretty much never a non-token creature and it would ruin flavor a lot to change that.
True that. However, that requirement may not change. hereby I dictate that if you made a saproling generator last round you may have your starting creature be a "fungus plant" which is exactly what they are. It will be the only exception in order to respect Magic's tradition of not having saproling creature cards.
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 do. Almost every single critique I've gotten this month is full of total retardation.
Use a better word next time.
Have you for a second considered that maybe it is not that 8 people are wrong (or "retarded") but rather that you are the one wrong? Casting your card at the beginning of your opponent's upkeep will easily net you two 5/5 or bigger creatures by the end of your turn. Three with a fetchland. More with Rampant grow/Harrow/etc. All for measly 5 mana. It may meet the requirements, but it's not fair at all.
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.
Use a better word next time, Maokun. Read the critiques of this round and last. Most of them are really, really, really dumb and don't come close to addressing the very valid criticism you pointed out here. I'll point it all out later when I have some time.
-It must have a mechanic that allows it to evolve into a different creature. E.g. Is a flip card, a leveler, changes modes with kicker/threshold/etc, is replaced by a token like Tuk-Tuk, etc. This mechanic has to tie somehow with the cards you've done before.
What's your take on the "different creature" clause of the second requirement?
Currently my entry actually evolves - in that it's the same guy but with more stuff. The same could be said about any leveler entries - they're the same guy but with more stuff. However, the wording of that second requirement sounds like the creature has to change into a different creature all together.
Is my entry ok as it is, or am I going to have to change it to generate a token that does the same thing?
Well yeah, that's pretty much it. You end with a creature that is different in a number of ways from the starting one. If I were to criticize those cards, I'd perhaps rate higher cards that produced a quite different result rather than, say, simply a change in p/t. But that's me. As far as the requirement goes, anything that changes your creature is valid.
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.
Im dropping. I don't feel like making a beast token that evolves into land fetching just to meet the mechanical tie, since as we've confirmed: Land entering the battlefield != land entering the battlefield.
Its hard at first to take criticism on cards you create. I know thats how I was (kinda) in the beginning, and you almost cant help but take it personally.
@Paradigm: There's no need to drop. Making a Beast creature that changes into, say, a BIGGER beast creature via land drop doesnt sound too hard t odo at all. It doesnt sound any harder than, say, a creature that changes via creatures dieing.
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 can take criticism just fine. That's the not the issue. In fact, I appreciate criticism - but only decent well thought out criticism. I totally agree with what Maokun said earlier about my card, about 75% of what Eventide said about it, and some of what a couple others said. But a good majority of it doesn't make sense. Like the guy who said my card should have just used the landfall keyword last round who obviously didn't read that it wasn't landfall since it triggered on anyone's land drop.
Also, according to the critiques I've been getting, your solution about the monster getting bigger from landfall does *not* count as a mechanical tie. I don't understand why the hell not, but the critiques this round showed that to be the unanimous opinion.
Anyway, I'm dropping also because I'm too far behind in points to catch up and I just don't feel like spending the time to write the critiques and top 3 in just to get kicked out next round anyway.
This is for me more than it is for anyone else. I sucks at colors.
Yar I was aiming for non-sapient but defiantly sentient in my card, but like magicbrain said its really going to be up to the judges for this requirement.
Maokun, don't stress too much about these kinds of clarity issues or clashes in understanding. They're bound to crop up from time to time with such a diverse array of competitors.
My First (And Probably Only) MCC Perfect Score: December 09 (Round One)
I liked the challenge. It was challenging. Keep it up. People just aren't used to working on cards with real restrictions. this is obviously just my opinion, but I hope the next round presents as much of a challenge as this one did.
The theme of this round was great and added much flavor. Its oool - we showed up in some mysterious land and met the first creatures there. (unfortunately for my guy he met some stupid hydras that were totally bass acwards)
This is for me more than it is for anyone else. I sucks at colors.
I do. Almost every single critique I've gotten this month is full of total retardation.
Use a better word next time.
Oh its fine, really. I wasnt mad or anything, just pointing it out. I really dont mind not getting a top 3, though it'd be nice.
@Moakun: I can see how people can get a little confused, but I dont see why. Although there's some places where you can be a little more clear, for the most part I've understood you and your challenge requirements quite easily.
@Paradigm Entity: While I agree that your card does have (in my opinion) enough to be considered a "mechanical tie" to your legendary land, how else do you see the critiques you're getting as being "full of retardation"?
Amazing banners made by Brofaux.
I considered deathtouch but was afraid that'd be too powerful.
How about this:
"If your life total is higher than it was as this turn began, put a number of 1/1 white Spirit creature tokens with flying onto the battlefield equal to the difference.
If your life total is lower than it was as this turn began, put a number of 1/1 black Spirit creature tokens with lifelink onto the battlefield equal to the difference."
or more simply this:
"Put a number of 1/1 black and white Spirit creature tokens onto the battlefield equal to the difference between your current life total and what your life total was as this turn began." with flying or something?
'Twas a great idea, and I wish I'd given it more thought. Speaking for myself, it was easier to just latch onto the material provided by the plane card than to invent a deep past whole cloth. Now it's a little late and my course is limited by what I've already done.
I also got non-sapient confused for non-sentient.
Have you for a second considered that maybe it is not that 8 people are wrong (or "retarded") but rather that you are the one wrong? Casting your card at the beginning of your opponent's upkeep will easily net you two 5/5 or bigger creatures by the end of your turn. Three with a fetchland. More with Rampant grow/Harrow/etc. All for measly 5 mana. It may meet the requirements, but it's not fair at all.
What's your take on the "different creature" clause of the second requirement?
Currently my entry actually evolves - in that it's the same guy but with more stuff. The same could be said about any leveler entries - they're the same guy but with more stuff. However, the wording of that second requirement sounds like the creature has to change into a different creature all together.
Is my entry ok as it is, or am I going to have to change it to generate a token that does the same thing?
This is for me more than it is for anyone else. I sucks at colors.
Its hard at first to take criticism on cards you create. I know thats how I was (kinda) in the beginning, and you almost cant help but take it personally.
@Paradigm: There's no need to drop. Making a Beast creature that changes into, say, a BIGGER beast creature via land drop doesnt sound too hard t odo at all. It doesnt sound any harder than, say, a creature that changes via creatures dieing.
Amazing banners made by Brofaux.
Also, according to the critiques I've been getting, your solution about the monster getting bigger from landfall does *not* count as a mechanical tie. I don't understand why the hell not, but the critiques this round showed that to be the unanimous opinion.
Anyway, I'm dropping also because I'm too far behind in points to catch up and I just don't feel like spending the time to write the critiques and top 3 in just to get kicked out next round anyway.