Cute idea, though to be honest I think Digital should be a supertype. Then you can do, as the mythic member of the cycle, The Game of Life (a Digital Enchantment).
Cute idea, though to be honest I think Digital should be a supertype. Then you can do, as the mythic member of the cycle, The Game of Life (a Digital Enchantment).
What a wonderful idea.
(do supertypes do anything, or are they otherwise just like subtypes? I know Snow only does something by identifying cards for search effects/snow mana)
Supertypes don't have to do anything, but they can (Legendary and World being the two examples of supertypes that do something; Basic behaves like Snow in that it's only used to distinguish between "basic"/"nonbasic", but only works on lands).
Digital as a supertype would probably only distinguish between "digital" and "analog"/"nondigital" cards. (I prefer "analog" personally, but based on the precedent with Basic and Snow, it'd be "nondigital" correctly.)
And... it is done. All 5 cards of the vertical cycle are done, ready for upcoming days.
What? Aren't there only 4 rarities? Yes, but card 5 is a legendary mythic rare.
Yah, it's Turing's Machine.
Initially I thought the design was too complex. I was comparing it to domain, metalcraft, and regular tribal, mostly. I have less issues with it after thinking it through for a bit, though. My only major concern is that you'll have to spend more effort thinking about creature type than would probably be preferable. With tribal it's pretty much "elf, elf, not elf, elf", but when you're building a deck or drafting you need to think about a lot more than one creature type. The same problem carries over in-game. I do tend to be a bit paranoid about this sort of thing though.
Subbak, instead of making it a mechanic, why not make a card that maybe fits the flavor? For instance, something like (please delete if we aren't allowed to throw mockups in here)
Gathering of Elders2G
Enchantment (R)
Each creature gets +X/+X, where X is the total number of types among creatures you control. No race can escape politics.
Since July 2011, the DCC isn't that consistent with the two vote policy the barrier is broken even someone goes up to 100 and needs more restrictions.
Its about time to set some new rules such as:
- If you vote for the submission of poster 1 on day 1. You can't vote on poster 1's submission on day 2.
- You can't vote if you didn't participate.
Since July 2011, the DCC isn't that consistent with the two vote policy the barrier is broken even someone goes up to 100 and needs more restrictions.
Its about time to set some new rules such as:
- If you vote for the submission of poster 1 on day 1. You can't vote on poster 1's submission on day 2.
- You can't vote if you didn't participate.
Going through these point by point:
1a) Since we restarted last month, we've been very consistent: first incorrect vote of any sort puts you on probation for the rest of the month (and your votes are ignored), any subsequent incorrect votes get your entry ignored.
1b) What?
1c) People breaking 100 points is going to happen regularly when the first week of a month has nearly 30 people each day. Considering that this month has been busier than last month, if this trend continues, we're going to see a winner with 200 points before the end of the year.
2) This sounds like a penalty for being a consistently good designer. As such, I really don't like it.
3) This hasn't been much of an issue. We've got two people who are consistently doing it this month (Prophylaxis and void_nothing, both probably because they're doing enough other things between RL and other contests that they don't have time to design another card for the DCC)... and that's about it. To be honest, I'd rather err on the side of having more people voting, just because it gets more people entering (they see there's a larger pool of votes to draw from, and figure they've got a chance of regularly pulling 2-3 votes a day).
Hmm... Well, not quite. You have to untap a card for each card you tap... but I should add a 1 to the second ability.
Edit: done. Hopefully on time.
Well no, because you can target an untapped land with the untap ability. Say you have lands A-E
Tap, untap land E
Untap, tap land A
Tap, untap land E
Untap, tap land B
Tap, untap land E
Untap...
Still does that if you put 1 on the cost; you just locked both players out of the game. Not a problem if you're playing the right deck, obviously, but stupid in limited. Why is this even a common anyway. whatdaheck
A bit late now, but the proper fix would've been "tap target untapped land an opponent controls" and "untap target tapped land an opponent controls"
@Flabort: I hope you realize your Langdon's Ant is hopelessly broken. There's no requirement for the land it untaps to be tapped in the first place.
EDIT==> Never mind, looks like that was just covered. Reading is tech.
A bit late now, but the proper fix would've been "tap target untapped land an opponent controls" and "untap target tapped land an opponent controls"
Well, can we put a * beside my name for the benefit of convincing MDenham to edit the quote? No?
Well, at least the following cards in the cycle will have the fix.
I've decided to start actually compiling a list of card ideas to use in this contest, rather than just making them up on the spot every time like I had been doing. Strategy!
Apparently I'm on a roll with white rares. Huh, wasn't expecting that.
FLABORT IT TOTALLY LOCKS THEM DOWN AGAIN. You can stack the abilities on Vant so it taps all their lands, and it leaves all yours untapped this time!
Tap: Tap Land A
Tap Land Z, Untap: Untap Z and transform triggers on stack.
Tap: Tap Land B
Tap Land Y, Untap: Untap Y, untap Z and two transform triggers on stack.
Let triggers resolve; untap Z, Y, transform twice, back to Vant.
Rinse and repeat.
Obviously you have to transform it this time (and it costs 4 mana) but still. :|
I've decided to start actually compiling a list of card ideas to use in this contest, rather than just making them up on the spot every time like I had been doing. Strategy!
Haha, this is exactly what I do. I have a rnadom text file where I just throw down random cards. Most of them I haven't used at all because they're not really gems.
It's too bad the creature type Digital doesn't exist in canon.
Ashamed of posts from years ago.
(Probably NSFW) So you may have heard I'm trying to write a TV series...
Most Nominated for Random Categories, 2013
What a wonderful idea.
(do supertypes do anything, or are they otherwise just like subtypes? I know Snow only does something by identifying cards for search effects/snow mana)
Editing it right now. Before it's too late.
Ashamed of posts from years ago.
Digital as a supertype would probably only distinguish between "digital" and "analog"/"nondigital" cards. (I prefer "analog" personally, but based on the precedent with Basic and Snow, it'd be "nondigital" correctly.)
(Probably NSFW) So you may have heard I'm trying to write a TV series...
Most Nominated for Random Categories, 2013
What? Aren't there only 4 rarities? Yes, but card 5 is a legendary mythic rare.
Yah, it's Turing's Machine.
Ashamed of posts from years ago.
Initially I thought the design was too complex. I was comparing it to domain, metalcraft, and regular tribal, mostly. I have less issues with it after thinking it through for a bit, though. My only major concern is that you'll have to spend more effort thinking about creature type than would probably be preferable. With tribal it's pretty much "elf, elf, not elf, elf", but when you're building a deck or drafting you need to think about a lot more than one creature type. The same problem carries over in-game. I do tend to be a bit paranoid about this sort of thing though.
Club Flamingo Wins: 1!
Gathering of Elders 2G
Enchantment (R)
Each creature gets +X/+X, where X is the total number of types among creatures you control.
No race can escape politics.
Kind of like a creature/goyf/enchantment
Club Flamingo Wins: 1!
You got 99 attackers but I'm blocking with 1.
The Winner is Judge | 7
This Winner is Also Judge | 6
Club Flamingo | Lots
Edit: done. Hopefully on time.
Ashamed of posts from years ago.
Its about time to set some new rules such as:
- If you vote for the submission of poster 1 on day 1. You can't vote on poster 1's submission on day 2.
- You can't vote if you didn't participate.
1a) Since we restarted last month, we've been very consistent: first incorrect vote of any sort puts you on probation for the rest of the month (and your votes are ignored), any subsequent incorrect votes get your entry ignored.
1b) What?
1c) People breaking 100 points is going to happen regularly when the first week of a month has nearly 30 people each day. Considering that this month has been busier than last month, if this trend continues, we're going to see a winner with 200 points before the end of the year.
2) This sounds like a penalty for being a consistently good designer. As such, I really don't like it.
3) This hasn't been much of an issue. We've got two people who are consistently doing it this month (Prophylaxis and void_nothing, both probably because they're doing enough other things between RL and other contests that they don't have time to design another card for the DCC)... and that's about it. To be honest, I'd rather err on the side of having more people voting, just because it gets more people entering (they see there's a larger pool of votes to draw from, and figure they've got a chance of regularly pulling 2-3 votes a day).
(Probably NSFW) So you may have heard I'm trying to write a TV series...
Most Nominated for Random Categories, 2013
Play it second main phase
[Clan Flamingo] Tier Archivist
[15:21] <@CC> Remember, if you argue, you are an idiot.
Untrophied Wins:
Perfect MCC Scores: 2
---------------------------------------------------------------
Then it doesn't get to attack!
My Pauper Cube ♤ The Pauper Cube Thread Common Knowledge — 1 2
Exactly! If you want it to attack, play it first main phase - point being, the drawback is totally irrelevant.
[Clan Flamingo] Tier Archivist
[15:21] <@CC> Remember, if you argue, you are an idiot.
Untrophied Wins:
Perfect MCC Scores: 2
---------------------------------------------------------------
My Pauper Cube ♤ The Pauper Cube Thread Common Knowledge — 1 2
Well no, because you can target an untapped land with the untap ability. Say you have lands A-E
Tap, untap land E
Untap, tap land A
Tap, untap land E
Untap, tap land B
Tap, untap land E
Untap...
Still does that if you put 1 on the cost; you just locked both players out of the game. Not a problem if you're playing the right deck, obviously, but stupid in limited. Why is this even a common anyway. whatdaheck
A bit late now, but the proper fix would've been "tap target untapped land an opponent controls" and "untap target tapped land an opponent controls"
You got 99 attackers but I'm blocking with 1.
The Winner is Judge | 7
This Winner is Also Judge | 6
Club Flamingo | Lots
EDIT==> Never mind, looks like that was just covered. Reading is tech.
@Lanxal - Formtwist would be awesome at one mana.
[Clan Flamingo] Tier Archivist
[15:21] <@CC> Remember, if you argue, you are an idiot.
Untrophied Wins:
Perfect MCC Scores: 2
---------------------------------------------------------------
Not so irrelevant. There are more turns besides the one it comes into play. But for it's cots/p-t, yeh Tattermunge maniac was better
Thought of the Month:
I gave up from trying to require the 'i' on my name: SolesticIo
Yes irrelevant - it only has to attack the turn it comes into play.
[Clan Flamingo] Tier Archivist
[15:21] <@CC> Remember, if you argue, you are an idiot.
Untrophied Wins:
Perfect MCC Scores: 2
---------------------------------------------------------------
Well, can we put a * beside my name for the benefit of convincing MDenham to edit the quote? No?
Well, at least the following cards in the cycle will have the fix.
Ashamed of posts from years ago.
Apparently I'm on a roll with white rares. Huh, wasn't expecting that.
R Citizen Cane (Feldon of the Third Path)
Tap: Tap Land A
Tap Land Z, Untap: Untap Z and transform triggers on stack.
Tap: Tap Land B
Tap Land Y, Untap: Untap Y, untap Z and two transform triggers on stack.
Let triggers resolve; untap Z, Y, transform twice, back to Vant.
Rinse and repeat.
Obviously you have to transform it this time (and it costs 4 mana) but still. :|
You got 99 attackers but I'm blocking with 1.
The Winner is Judge | 7
This Winner is Also Judge | 6
Club Flamingo | Lots
Haha, this is exactly what I do. I have a rnadom text file where I just throw down random cards. Most of them I haven't used at all because they're not really gems.
My Pauper Cube ♤ The Pauper Cube Thread Common Knowledge — 1 2