As usual with this sort of advice, what I say and what your fellow contestants choose to critique on may be two different things, but I'd be okay with the second case if you're using a keyword. If you're not, then you're better off sticking with making sure that both cards actually have that mechanic.
There's nothing mechanically wrong with +X/+Y, it just resonates with me the wrong way. Dunno why. It makes sense flavorfully and isn't too complex in practice, but it looks ugly. I think the aesthetics of a mechanic can be just as important as the functionality of it.
And yeah, between the two presented, the Sovereign Ooze was definitely the more interesting card and potentially the more powerful. The fact that it could grab something like double strike off one creature and a beefy power score off another or unblockable off a creature and "when this deals damage, [FOO]" off another would make for some really fun interactions. Competitive? Probably not. But Mythic is as much about iconic and fun as it is competitive.
And is there a model for critiquing that we're supposed to follow? I read the OP, but I'm suffering from information overload due to school. I beg for a shorter explanation. Is this okay?
I can see myself getting frustrated very quickly in this competition, so I'm going to express myself briefly one time and hope it comes across respectfully. Afterwords, I won't initiate a discussion on the matter again.
To be fair, I am new to this forum and even newer to this game. But it doesn't take a veteran to realize that there is a clear, albeit flexible, context within which we are challenged to both design and critique. Therefore, I am reminding and requesting all participants to please henceforth critique based on a given challenge's criteria instead of mere opinions in a vacuum. Doing so would be appreciated and in fact proper, as opposed to the groundless critiques that I am seeing. Part of the appeal to the CCL is the common ground that our creativity and our opinions are set on with each individual challenge. It's perfectly reasonable to expect each judge to review and refer to the challenge prior to and while critiquing. Besides, just as it's fun to design within parameters, it's also fun to express our critiques within them.
Thank you. I hope this is received as kindly as my intention.
Samite Missionary - On a common creature it really should have been only one ability. The basic land token is cute, but I don't really like it, as being a land its not quite as interactive as creature tokens. This is a bit of the same problem that Fortifications have over Equipment.
EDIT: Lots of commons have two abilities. But yeah, you're right.
You... "don't really like it"? Okay, but can you fit that opinion into the actual criteria lined out in the challenge? Because creature tokens aren't at all relevant here. My card deals with Domain in Dominaria as per the challenge lined out in the OP - not Eldrazi in Zendikar.
Different from the original card. This round no longer requires you to use a printed card as a basis, you can make a completely new card.
Legend, there's no rule against continuing discussion in the round thread if you want to, I generally use this thread for organizing purposes, but general concerns about critiques are of course welcome As for your concerns, I don't think most people look at critiques as being limited in the same way that the challenge is. One part of that particular challenge was to transform a mechanic from Dominaria, but I think it's still fair to compare the end result to other existing mechanics to judge how printable the mechanic would be. Basically, Dominarian flavor was one part of the challenge, but evaulating a card from a strictly mechanical standpoint was another part, and players need to be able to refer to all previous cards to evaulate that part correctly. Does that make sense?
I don't think most people look at critiques as being limited in the same way that the challenge is.
I think you're right, and I'll probably just have to live with it, but I can at least encourage participants to express their critiques within the parameters of the challenge.
I think it's still fair to compare the end result to other existing mechanics to judge how printable the mechanic would be. Basically, Dominarian flavor was one part of the challenge, but evaulating a card from a strictly mechanical standpoint was another part, and players need to be able to refer to all previous cards to evaulate that part correctly. Does that make sense?
Yes, for the purpose of evaluating a card for any reason actually, it makes perfect sense to refer to all previous cards. However, some of the comments I've seen, which could be paraphrased "I don't like it because an existing mechanic is better in my opinion" or "I don't like it because this is better than an existing mechanic", don't hold water because that could be applied to existing mechanics - Wither vs. Infect, Persist vs. Undying, First Strike vs. Double Strike, etc - yet WotC saw fit to print those mechanics if for no other reason than the context of their respective sets. So again, yes it makes sense to evaluate designs in light of all previous cards - surely WotC does just that - but not in total disregard of the "new" mechanic in its context which is defined by a given challenge in our case.
Probably the biggest drawback of the whole custom cards operation is that cards are difficult to evaulate in a vacuum. The CCL suffers as much as other contests at the beginning, but hopefully the cumulative aspect of it mitigates that to some degree. This round, you have a chance to expand on the mechanic and give at least a little bit more context of how it can be used. It's a far cry from having a whole set to look at and see how the mechanic fits in, but it's a start. Another advantage of the CCL is that is is pretty loose and allows explanation by the players, so you can feel free to describe the mechanical context in which your mechanic makes more sense than another similar one, or to add flavorful descriptions, such as little stories.
Actually, your design gave me a mechanic idea to discuss, I'll go make a thread. Here's the thread, didn't turn out to be a great idea but it was interesting.
The dearly departed Scarlett Jane slept with, on different occasions, a Minotaur, a being of living darkness, and a sentient statue. Wow.
She was a very talented lady ;)... But in all honesty I thought of looking over the teams to make sure stuff like this don't stand out and decided it'd be too much of a pain to sort everyone out. If you wonder how one spends a night of passion with a spirit or a statue, I dare say you lack imagination
(Probably NSFW) So you may have heard I'm trying to write a TV series...
Most Nominated for Random Categories, 2013
And yeah, between the two presented, the Sovereign Ooze was definitely the more interesting card and potentially the more powerful. The fact that it could grab something like double strike off one creature and a beefy power score off another or unblockable off a creature and "when this deals damage, [FOO]" off another would make for some really fun interactions. Competitive? Probably not. But Mythic is as much about iconic and fun as it is competitive.
victimsfinalists!(Probably NSFW) So you may have heard I'm trying to write a TV series...
Most Nominated for Random Categories, 2013
And is there a model for critiquing that we're supposed to follow? I read the OP, but I'm suffering from information overload due to school. I beg for a shorter explanation. Is this okay?
Flavor
Playability
Originality
Printability
EDIT: After some sleep, I understand now.
Sorry about that.
To be fair, I am new to this forum and even newer to this game. But it doesn't take a veteran to realize that there is a clear, albeit flexible, context within which we are challenged to both design and critique. Therefore, I am reminding and requesting all participants to please henceforth critique based on a given challenge's criteria instead of mere opinions in a vacuum. Doing so would be appreciated and in fact proper, as opposed to the groundless critiques that I am seeing. Part of the appeal to the CCL is the common ground that our creativity and our opinions are set on with each individual challenge. It's perfectly reasonable to expect each judge to review and refer to the challenge prior to and while critiquing. Besides, just as it's fun to design within parameters, it's also fun to express our critiques within them.
Thank you. I hope this is received as kindly as my intention.
@ Profani
EDIT: Lots of commons have two abilities. But yeah, you're right.
You... "don't really like it"? Okay, but can you fit that opinion into the actual criteria lined out in the challenge? Because creature tokens aren't at all relevant here. My card deals with Domain in Dominaria as per the challenge lined out in the OP - not Eldrazi in Zendikar.
Legend, there's no rule against continuing discussion in the round thread if you want to, I generally use this thread for organizing purposes, but general concerns about critiques are of course welcome As for your concerns, I don't think most people look at critiques as being limited in the same way that the challenge is. One part of that particular challenge was to transform a mechanic from Dominaria, but I think it's still fair to compare the end result to other existing mechanics to judge how printable the mechanic would be. Basically, Dominarian flavor was one part of the challenge, but evaulating a card from a strictly mechanical standpoint was another part, and players need to be able to refer to all previous cards to evaulate that part correctly. Does that make sense?
I think you're right, and I'll probably just have to live with it, but I can at least encourage participants to express their critiques within the parameters of the challenge.
Yes, for the purpose of evaluating a card for any reason actually, it makes perfect sense to refer to all previous cards. However, some of the comments I've seen, which could be paraphrased "I don't like it because an existing mechanic is better in my opinion" or "I don't like it because this is better than an existing mechanic", don't hold water because that could be applied to existing mechanics - Wither vs. Infect, Persist vs. Undying, First Strike vs. Double Strike, etc - yet WotC saw fit to print those mechanics if for no other reason than the context of their respective sets. So again, yes it makes sense to evaluate designs in light of all previous cards - surely WotC does just that - but not in total disregard of the "new" mechanic in its context which is defined by a given challenge in our case.
Actually, your design gave me a mechanic idea to discuss, I'll go make a thread.
Here's the thread, didn't turn out to be a great idea but it was interesting.
Host, December 2015: A Winter Wonderland? - R1|R2|R3|Top 8|Semifinals|Finals|Poll
Host, CCL April 2014: A Game of Fate - Signup|R1|R2|R3|Top 8|Semifinal|Finals|Poll
Host, CCL December 2012: Spy Games - Signup|R1|R2|R3|Top 8|Semifinals|Finals|Poll
Host, CCL November 2010: The Perfect Crime - Signup|R1|R2|R3|Top 8|Semifinals|Finals|Poll
Host, CCL August 2009: A Commander's Journey: Signups|R1|R2|R3|Top 8|Semifinals|Finals|Poll
I've got tons of art from the web. Want art for a render? PM me! Want to create your own collection? Start here!
Host, December 2015: A Winter Wonderland? - R1|R2|R3|Top 8|Semifinals|Finals|Poll
Host, CCL April 2014: A Game of Fate - Signup|R1|R2|R3|Top 8|Semifinal|Finals|Poll
Host, CCL December 2012: Spy Games - Signup|R1|R2|R3|Top 8|Semifinals|Finals|Poll
Host, CCL November 2010: The Perfect Crime - Signup|R1|R2|R3|Top 8|Semifinals|Finals|Poll
Host, CCL August 2009: A Commander's Journey: Signups|R1|R2|R3|Top 8|Semifinals|Finals|Poll
I've got tons of art from the web. Want art for a render? PM me! Want to create your own collection? Start here!
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
But they never even found the body?
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
4th place at CCC&G Pro Tour
Chances of bad hands (<2 or >4 land):
21: 28.9%
22: 27.5%
23: 26.3%
24: 25.5%
25: 25.1%
26: 25.3%
She was a very talented lady ;)... But in all honesty I thought of looking over the teams to make sure stuff like this don't stand out and decided it'd be too much of a pain to sort everyone out. If you wonder how one spends a night of passion with a spirit or a statue, I dare say you lack imagination
Thanks!
I wonder how people will react to the whole story, this is still round one...
Host, December 2015: A Winter Wonderland? - R1|R2|R3|Top 8|Semifinals|Finals|Poll
Host, CCL April 2014: A Game of Fate - Signup|R1|R2|R3|Top 8|Semifinal|Finals|Poll
Host, CCL December 2012: Spy Games - Signup|R1|R2|R3|Top 8|Semifinals|Finals|Poll
Host, CCL November 2010: The Perfect Crime - Signup|R1|R2|R3|Top 8|Semifinals|Finals|Poll
Host, CCL August 2009: A Commander's Journey: Signups|R1|R2|R3|Top 8|Semifinals|Finals|Poll
I've got tons of art from the web. Want art for a render? PM me! Want to create your own collection? Start here!
Rule 34: "If it exists, there's porn of it. No exceptions."
----------------------------
Club Flamingo Wins: 10
----------------------------
EDH Decks
BG Vicious Varolz | RW Jor Kadeen, the Mean Machine | RG Atarka: Muh_Dragons.dec (WIP) | WU Brago, Blink Eternal (WIP)
----------------------------
You got 99 attackers but I'm blocking with 1.
The Winner is Judge | 7
This Winner is Also Judge | 6
Club Flamingo | Lots