Originally Posted by Timothy, Mimeslayer View Post
Job 3
Nauseating Revelation
Enchantment (R)
At the beginning of your upkeep, discard a creature card. If you do, creatures your opponent's control get -2/-0 until end of turn.
"Well, if you didn't want to know, why did you bother storming my laboratory?" —Ludevic, necro-alchemist
This does not work. It needs to generate +1 CA, not -1.
Why doesn't it work? I get the card into my graveyard where I would prefer it. We are dealing with zombies aren't we?
Are we allowed to ask for assistance when it comes to wording? Because im a little unsure about my card...
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.
Why doesn't it work? I get the card into my graveyard where I would prefer it. We are dealing with zombies aren't we?
I personally think that the requirement "Card advantage" in the challenge means actual card advantage, as in 1 more card in hand or on the field. I guess you could leave it as it is, and let the judges decide if virtual card advantage works or not.
Took me a millenia to think up an acceptable name for my aura..
As for the wording, I think it's as good as it's going to get. I think im prepared for the judgments.
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.
It's similar to Doom Blade in that it's common. It has a narrower scope, but can be just as useless or just as helpful as a Doom Blade. Both have one restriction. Then there's Go For The Throat, that also costs 2, but is uncommon - this is probably because artifact creatures are far more common than transformed creatures - hence why I left my entry at common. Those are just the thoughts I had while making it.
And excuse me if I've analysed Doom Blade or Go For The Throat wrong, those were just the main features that came to mind when making this card.
If anyone else would care to explain why it should cost 1, please enlighten me Other than it being a really narrow effect, I can't see why.
Im confused also as to why peopel think my card should cost a lot less than 2WW. I based the price off of Windborn Muse, which doesnt have as many options to give, so I thought cmc 4 to be a fair mana cost.
Also, are we just supposed to look up the cards ourselves from the other threads? Because that's quite the inconvenience.. :/
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.
@ Mundus: I'll grant you the reference, but there are two things wrong about the comparison with Windborn Muse. First, it's an aura, so it requires already having a creature down to be of any use, and gets 2-1ed with spot removal. There are better ways to get evasion too, like Armored Ascension, which costs the same and turns a 1/1 into a threat, instead of just a hassle to block. Second, the muse imposes that cost on any creature that attacks you, not just one, and also serves as a blocker itself. That was my logic as to why it's overcosted, anyway.
@everyone: Please post your team name when you post your cards. It makes it a hassle to look up everyone's cards for judging.
@shadow: Card Advantage is Card Advantage, whether or not it's in hand, on the field or otherwise. You were also not very explicit in your version of Card Advantage, so many people, since the 3rd challenge is zombie based, would be playing out of their graveyard more often than not.
To those that pointed out my card is basically a reprint of Afterlife - that was intentional. I was playing around with the cost to make it less suck, as well as doing a reflavor to fit in the world of Innistrad. I mean how is Afterlife not an Innistrad reprint/functional reprint (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.
And how is Journey to Nowhere a bad example? A sorcery speed card for 1W that deals with even more creatures than my spell, it's a perfect example. Sure, it can be destroyed, but that happens very seldom and it's out of the question for blue, red and black. Do you, in as much honesty as you can muster, believe that at 4 mana this spell would see any play outside limited?
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.
@Ninja Caterpie: Yeah. I'm just glad the effect isn't seen that often. Interesting point on white stretching the color pie that way. So black can do almost anything if they pay enough life, white can do almost anything if they give the opponent something back in return, blue can do things by using convoluted effects, red can do almost anything if it's random, and green is screwed. Heh.
Hey shadow, when your doing MCC type eliminations, it's best to LET PEOPLE WHO ARE PARTICIPATING KNOW!!! Because of this, I'm actually GLAD I have to wait until next month. I'm hoping it's run better than this.
I propose that next time a person runs a CCL, they should have at least participated in it several times prior to being allowed to run one. Sorry if I'm fuming about this, but this one was a pretty bad error.
Yeah, Shadow, you haven't even changed the "rules" spoiler, which still says "The first three rounds are open to everyone who joined in the sign-up thread"...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're having creature problems I feel bad for you son
You got 99 attackers but I'm blocking with 1.
The Winner is Judge | 7
This Winner is Also Judge | 6
Club Flamingo | Lots
Hey shadow, when your doing MCC type eliminations, it's best to LET PEOPLE WHO ARE PARTICIPATING KNOW!!! Because of this, I'm actually GLAD I have to wait until next month. I'm hoping it's run better than this.
What is an MCC type elimination? I'm missing from round two, despite getting both a card and crits (and a top 3) in ON TIME in round 1
What is an MCC type elimination? I'm missing from round two, despite getting both a card and crits (and a top 3) in ON TIME in round 1
I'm missing and confused too.
Looking just at the scores from the critiques, unless I miscalculated something, I came second for my team.
Since I got both critiques and top 3 in on time I should have the extra points for those as well, and thus no-one should have caught up to me there. So I should definitely be in second place overall for team parchment. brasil_dude101 came first (by a wide margin), and he's also missing from this round - although he didn't get crits in for round one (but did do a top 3).
Is it the highest scoring players who are missing?
I have no idea whats going on, and I certainly feel like if things are doing to diverge from the norm so much we should at least be told about it before it happens, and the first post which quotes the normal rules should explain what's actually going to differ from them, rather than stating the rules and then doing things differently.
Or perhaps it is just that some people's posts were accidentally missed and thus they were dropped by mistake for not critting when they actually did? (except that's supposed to only put you on probation, and you don't get kicked out until it happens again, according to the rules which shadowfuryix quoted in his posts).
Got December written up now; the only odd thing I'm doing is going with five teams instead of four. (Top 8 will be "winner of each team plus the top 3 remaining people", or I may just do rounds with 10 and 5 instead before dropping to the final 2. I'm not entirely sure which yet.)
Got December written up now; the only odd thing I'm doing is going with five teams instead of four. (Top 8 will be "winner of each team plus the top 3 remaining people", or I may just do rounds with 10 and 5 instead before dropping to the final 2. I'm not entirely sure which yet.)
I'd say the second - my understanding from the last time it was discussed is that the way the scores are done they can be compared within the teams, but not fairly compared between teams, so the "top three remaining people" would end up biased in some way towards teams with more/fewer judges, or something like that.
But I can't be bothered running the maths myself to check that, and may just be remembering wrong.
I'd say the second - my understanding from the last time it was discussed is that the way the scores are done they can be compared within the teams, but not fairly compared between teams, so the "top three remaining people" would end up biased in some way towards teams with more/fewer judges, or something like that.
But I can't be bothered running the maths myself to check that, and may just be remembering wrong.
Yeah, there was an argument over that, though I don't think it actually went anywhere.
I think the only change that I'm going to make to the scoring system for December is to separate the bonus points out a little bit:
Current: (sum of judges + bonus points) * 100 / (3 * # of judges + 2)
Adjusted: ((sum of judges) / (3 * # of judges)) * X + (bonus points)
This makes the bonus points worth the same amount for everyone, rather than being worth less for people who get judged by more people. I'm not sure what I'm going to use for X (I'm thinking about using either 8, 23, or 48 - which gives a per-round total of 10, 25, and 50 respectively), but this looks a little closer to streamlining the large-team-vs.-small-team issue.
Any opinions on how much of the total (as a percentage) should be left to bonus points, folks?
Why doesn't it work? I get the card into my graveyard where I would prefer it. We are dealing with zombies aren't we?
Amazing banners made by Brofaux.
You got 99 attackers but I'm blocking with 1.
The Winner is Judge | 7
This Winner is Also Judge | 6
Club Flamingo | Lots
I personally think that the requirement "Card advantage" in the challenge means actual card advantage, as in 1 more card in hand or on the field. I guess you could leave it as it is, and let the judges decide if virtual card advantage works or not.
As for the wording, I think it's as good as it's going to get. I think im prepared for the judgments.
Amazing banners made by Brofaux.
I am curious as to why you think this. I don't mind, just curious
My logic was that it's costed the same as Doom Blade and Go For The Throat.
It's similar to Doom Blade in that it's common. It has a narrower scope, but can be just as useless or just as helpful as a Doom Blade. Both have one restriction. Then there's Go For The Throat, that also costs 2, but is uncommon - this is probably because artifact creatures are far more common than transformed creatures - hence why I left my entry at common. Those are just the thoughts I had while making it.
And excuse me if I've analysed Doom Blade or Go For The Throat wrong, those were just the main features that came to mind when making this card.
If anyone else would care to explain why it should cost 1, please enlighten me Other than it being a really narrow effect, I can't see why.
This is for me more than it is for anyone else. I sucks at colors.
Also, are we just supposed to look up the cards ourselves from the other threads? Because that's quite the inconvenience.. :/
Amazing banners made by Brofaux.
@everyone: Please post your team name when you post your cards. It makes it a hassle to look up everyone's cards for judging.
You got 99 attackers but I'm blocking with 1.
The Winner is Judge | 7
This Winner is Also Judge | 6
Club Flamingo | Lots
[Clan Flamingo] Tier Archivist
[15:21] <@CC> Remember, if you argue, you are an idiot.
Untrophied Wins:
Perfect MCC Scores: 2
---------------------------------------------------------------
Journey to Nowhere
Edit: Better example. Why does letting them keep a 1/1 vanilla creature make Terminate white?
Not a great example - however, I did just remember about Unmake. Doesn't change the fact yours can hit for epic near-unblockable damage as well.
[Clan Flamingo] Tier Archivist
[15:21] <@CC> Remember, if you argue, you are an idiot.
Untrophied Wins:
Perfect MCC Scores: 2
---------------------------------------------------------------
Because flavour. You killed them but their ghost is still there. Only white would have a monster stay alive.
Also because white can do a lot of stuff if it gives something back to the opponent.
You got 99 attackers but I'm blocking with 1.
The Winner is Judge | 7
This Winner is Also Judge | 6
Club Flamingo | Lots
Distortion Strike
And how is Journey to Nowhere a bad example? A sorcery speed card for 1W that deals with even more creatures than my spell, it's a perfect example. Sure, it can be destroyed, but that happens very seldom and it's out of the question for blue, red and black. Do you, in as much honesty as you can muster, believe that at 4 mana this spell would see any play outside limited?
[Clan Flamingo] Tier Archivist
[15:21] <@CC> Remember, if you argue, you are an idiot.
Untrophied Wins:
Perfect MCC Scores: 2
---------------------------------------------------------------
I propose that next time a person runs a CCL, they should have at least participated in it several times prior to being allowed to run one. Sorry if I'm fuming about this, but this one was a pretty bad error.
You got 99 attackers but I'm blocking with 1.
The Winner is Judge | 7
This Winner is Also Judge | 6
Club Flamingo | Lots
What is an MCC type elimination? I'm missing from round two, despite getting both a card and crits (and a top 3) in ON TIME in round 1
Looking just at the scores from the critiques, unless I miscalculated something, I came second for my team.
Since I got both critiques and top 3 in on time I should have the extra points for those as well, and thus no-one should have caught up to me there. So I should definitely be in second place overall for team parchment. brasil_dude101 came first (by a wide margin), and he's also missing from this round - although he didn't get crits in for round one (but did do a top 3).
Is it the highest scoring players who are missing?
I have no idea whats going on, and I certainly feel like if things are doing to diverge from the norm so much we should at least be told about it before it happens, and the first post which quotes the normal rules should explain what's actually going to differ from them, rather than stating the rules and then doing things differently.
Or perhaps it is just that some people's posts were accidentally missed and thus they were dropped by mistake for not critting when they actually did? (except that's supposed to only put you on probation, and you don't get kicked out until it happens again, according to the rules which shadowfuryix quoted in his posts).
(Probably NSFW) So you may have heard I'm trying to write a TV series...
Most Nominated for Random Categories, 2013
I'd say the second - my understanding from the last time it was discussed is that the way the scores are done they can be compared within the teams, but not fairly compared between teams, so the "top three remaining people" would end up biased in some way towards teams with more/fewer judges, or something like that.
But I can't be bothered running the maths myself to check that, and may just be remembering wrong.
I think the only change that I'm going to make to the scoring system for December is to separate the bonus points out a little bit:
Current: (sum of judges + bonus points) * 100 / (3 * # of judges + 2)
Adjusted: ((sum of judges) / (3 * # of judges)) * X + (bonus points)
This makes the bonus points worth the same amount for everyone, rather than being worth less for people who get judged by more people. I'm not sure what I'm going to use for X (I'm thinking about using either 8, 23, or 48 - which gives a per-round total of 10, 25, and 50 respectively), but this looks a little closer to streamlining the large-team-vs.-small-team issue.
Any opinions on how much of the total (as a percentage) should be left to bonus points, folks?
(Probably NSFW) So you may have heard I'm trying to write a TV series...
Most Nominated for Random Categories, 2013