Does my spacious way to template (which I haven't noticed in others' posts) influence you negatively?
Sorry, I should be clear: I don't care how you format your card for the forum, so long as I can read it. So no, I don't care if you put spaces between the lines, put the rarity symbol on the first line, put your P/T in brackets, don't put your P/T in brackets, or whatever. You don't have to format your posts the way I format my posts. But if you use nonstandard or ambiguous Magic terminology, I will probably not give you the benefit of the doubt for that.
As a real quick example, take MDenham's Errekwor Stone on February 18th. I think I get what it does... it seems cool and creative... but it takes a lot of shortcuts with standard Magic terminology, and I'm left questioning whether I'm reading it as-intended. I'm happy that people did vote for it, I have no problem whatsoever with other people voting for it (my understanding is that people are free to use whatever criteria they want, as long as it's in good faith) but it just doesn't fit the mold for a card that would typically get my vote.
I understand the time it takes to be precise and to put polish on a card, and I also believe that polish and precision are simply good design factors. So is brevity, and I feel like I'm able to appreciate the hard work that goes into making a card very simple. There are a couple designers that I think are really good at that, on a regular basis (Piar, I'm looking at you!) and I tend to vote for them more frequently than other people do, I think.
Sucker Punch
Instant (C)
As an additional cost to cast Sucker Punch, reveal a creature card from your hand.
Sucker Punch deals X damage to target creature, where X is equal to the revealed creature's power.
"What's fair is subjective, who won is not."
You do realize what happens when you reveal an Emrakul. I can imagine a perfect hand with two of these and an Emrakul in hand, Pyretic Ritual into Pyretic Ritual and you win. Kind of mean! Blazing Shoal is banned in modern and is weaker than this. But I love the idea!
My card deals damage creatures only so, unless you have a Boros Reckoner or something like that out, I don't see how this wins.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
(22 Total) - October 2014; December 2014; January 2015; April 2015; June 2015; August 2015; September 2015; November 2015; December 2015(T); January 2016; March 2016(T); April 2016; June 2016; October 2016; December 2016(T); February 2017; April 2017; December 2017; November 2018(T); January 2019; April 2019; June 2019
(8 Total) - May 2015; May 2016; June 2016; August 2016; October 2016; December 2016; October 2017; May 2019
(7 Total) - September 2015; October 2015; January 2016; March 2016; April 2016; July 2016(T); March 2019(T)
You do realize what happens when you reveal an Emrakul. I can imagine a perfect hand with two of these and an Emrakul in hand, Pyretic Ritual into Pyretic Ritual and you win. Kind of mean! Blazing Shoal is banned in modern and is weaker than this. But I love the idea!
I'm pretty confused about how that does anything relevant. Unless the card was mis-read to be able to hit players too.
Quote from CryoZenith »
Does my spacious way to template (which I haven't noticed in others' posts) influence you negatively?
I personally prefer the standard forum format, but it doesn't influence my voting either.
Sucker Punch
Instant (C)
As an additional cost to cast Sucker Punch, reveal a creature card from your hand.
Sucker Punch deals X damage to target creature, where X is equal to the revealed creature's power.
"What's fair is subjective, who won is not."
You do realize what happens when you reveal an Emrakul. I can imagine a perfect hand with two of these and an Emrakul in hand, Pyretic Ritual into Pyretic Ritual and you win. Kind of mean! Blazing Shoal is banned in modern and is weaker than this. But I love the idea!
As a real quick example, take MDenham's Errekwor Stone on February 18th. I think I get what it does... it seems cool and creative... but it takes a lot of shortcuts with standard Magic terminology, and I'm left questioning whether I'm reading it as-intended.
It takes exactly one shortcut! The problem is that exchanging things isn't used very often (it's defined in the rules, though; but it's just not used very often because some of the requirements that it imposes internally aren't obvious at first glance).
For what it's worth, these would be the rulings on that card:
If you somehow lose ownership of the targeted permanent, the exchange fails;
When the exchange occurs, the targeted permanent goes on top of your library at the same time as the original top card of your library gets manifested. It may enter the battlefield under another player's control if the targeted permanent was controlled by another player;
Everything that was attached to the targeted permanent remains attached to the manifested card;
With the second ability, you are not casting that card from a player's hand, but from the battlefield. It will go to the stack, and if you somehow have a face-down token, it will cease to exist at that point.
That said... the wording was chosen for a specific purpose, and is almost entirely standard wording. The "one shortcut" I mentioned - making manifesting the top card of your library part of the exchange itself - is the exception, and it exists because the standard wording of "Manifest the top card of your library, then exchange it with target permanent. If they were exchanged this way, put the targeted permanent on top of your library." (which is the functionally equivalent version - leaving out that "If they were exchanged this way" clause makes the ability do things differently when you have an empty library) just doesn't flow as well when you read it. As a result, I'm reasonably certain that Wizards would choose to use the same wording I did. While there's something to be said for precision, sometimes you can be precise to the point of getting in the way of clarity.
Man, I'd really like to chime in on the discussion going on here, but I gotta go to bed. One thing I will say though, I don't have any problem with how you format your cards Cryo/ Personally I prefer a more standard formatting, but I wouldn't take formatting into account for voting unless it was atrocious. Heck some people think you should put the flavor text above the P/T, but of course those people are .
(22 Total) - October 2014; December 2014; January 2015; April 2015; June 2015; August 2015; September 2015; November 2015; December 2015(T); January 2016; March 2016(T); April 2016; June 2016; October 2016; December 2016(T); February 2017; April 2017; December 2017; November 2018(T); January 2019; April 2019; June 2019
(8 Total) - May 2015; May 2016; June 2016; August 2016; October 2016; December 2016; October 2017; May 2019
(7 Total) - September 2015; October 2015; January 2016; March 2016; April 2016; July 2016(T); March 2019(T)
But, you know, since I did anyway, I guess what I'd say for that particular card is that I probably wouldn't have used manifest technology for it. We still have morph, we even have stuff like Ixidron... there's more than one way to skin the "face down as a 2/2 creature" cat. I think that doing it as part of an exchange probably warrants a new way, and a separate rules entry, rather than manifest.
Also, the "card" wording in the second line read as very ambiguous to me. The closest templating equivalent I know of is Pull from Eternity, and I assume you intended something very different from that effect. I don't know whether "permanent" or "creature" might have been more appropriate, but I think again that you've entered uncharted rules territory. That's cool, but I'm still left scratching my head at the practical interpretation.
ANYWAY... not trying to turn this into a referendum about a card from a couple days ago. I liked the card. I may (or may not) have voted for it if the templating felt a little more bolted down to me. I could say that about a lot of cards. It's just my personal voting bias.
I've noticed that usually when I win the day/get many votes, my card has a very short effect. Interesting.
Yup. Grokability is something everyone on this board naturally leans toward, because a card you have to read more than once to understand is less like to be considered by a person in the first place. Short and sweet typically make things grokable. I know for me if I have to read your card more than once to get what it's trying to do, chances are slim I'm voting for it.
Yup. Grokability is something everyone on this board naturally leans toward, because a card you have to read more than once to understand is less like to be considered by a person in the first place. Short and sweet typically make things grokable. I know for me if I have to read your card more than once to get what it's trying to do, chances are slim I'm voting for it.
This is generally how I feel, but I have also worked hard to cultivate an appreciate for preposterous Timmy-bait. Those cards have their own kind of elegance, if done correctly. The card just has to feel like a unified design rather than somebody's overstacked plate at a buffet table.
I must be an oddity, then. I rate cards about 70% on playability/spikeness, and try as much as possible not to let something like difficulty of implementation/wordiness/non-intuitiveness affect my votes.
Maybe you are, and that's fine.
An important thing to consider as a designer is mass appeal. The demographic that is interested in playability/spike factors is but one group of many among magic players, and it isn't even the largest. Think of it in terms of a marketing campaign trying to sell a new product and the card's rule text as slogans/ad space. Are most people going to buy into your idea if they don't get your slogan/ad on the first read? No, they're not. If they have to figure it out, it makes them feel stupid, and you can bet people don't like to feel stupid. They'll just move on. The same thing happens with cards. That's why New World Order and the like came to be in the first place: to increase mass appeal by lowering complexity at entry level magic (commons.) Magic popularity has grown instead of declined every year since.
But here is the kicker: You can make a card the is extremely playable/spike oriented and STILL make it intuitive and brief. Often the best designs appeal to many audiences, not just one. In a competition like this it makes sense to design cards that cover many demographics since, despite us as group being rather niche as designers, we all have certain bias to different demographics.
Eh, the reason it's manifested is because there's no guarantee the original top card of your library is a permanent card, and at present manifest is the only way to get a face-down instant or sorcery onto the battlefield.
Incidentally, that's where the second ability comes in. Practically speaking, it amounts to "unmorph anything, if you choose to pay its mana cost". The problem is that when it's an instant or a sorcery (or, really, an Aura as well), you can't just say "okay, turn it face up"; you have to go through the normal spell-casting process. So the process ends up being similar to casting things from your graveyard, except this time it's from the battlefield. (Yes, that means that "whenever a creature leaves the battlefield" triggers will get triggered.) The side effect is that it means that for things that can unmorph without problems, they have to go through a slightly more complicated process than just turning it face-up; but it's an existing process, at least.
That said, I don't normally like "cast this from the battlefield" cards because there's rarely a good reason to do it that way instead of just flickering them. This happens to be one of the exceptions where you can't just do that.
I sometimes flush my own designs on account of wordiness / ugliness. Usually I just sit on them for a while and I'll think of a way to do it that's a little easier on the eyes.
In the case of Ice Cauldron, it's one of those designs that time forgot. As neat as it is once you understand it, I don't think I could get behind it if it were released now. That text box is a hot mess. In my opinion, comprehensibility counts for something.
I sometimes flush my own designs on account of wordiness / ugliness. Usually I just sit on them for a while and I'll think of a way to do it that's a little easier on the eyes.
In the case of Ice Cauldron, it's one of those designs that time forgot. As neat as it is once you understand it, I don't think I could get behind it if it were released now. That text box is a hot mess. In my opinion, comprehensibility counts for something.
Yeah, I've tried redesigning Ice Cauldron at least once myself. Part of the problem is the whole "...and you only get to use it for that card, but you can go ahead and cast that card without using that mana" edge case, which I'm pretty sure a redesigned version wouldn't bother including.
At that point it could be as simple as "X, T: Note the type and amount of mana used to pay this activation cost." + "T: Add the last noted type and amount of mana to your mana pool." (well, not exactly, as you don't want to be able to activate the second ability without having activated the first ability once), which is a surprisingly short card... but generally that garners complaints about "memory issues" from some people.
(You could even improve the card by basically having the noted mana operate as a stack - the last ability proceeds to also "erase" your last note in addition - but at that point the card might actually be a little too good to be printable.)
I've been enjoying hearing others thought processes on card design and voting. Here's my 2 cents.....
While I agree with most of what IcariiFA and Guesswork are saying as far as cards being straight forward and easy to understand (grokability?), I think I lean a little more towards creativity and fun than most people do (I think I voted for Mario). I put very little stock in things like perfect wording and mana symbols/abilities being in the correct order, as long as I get the idea of what the card does, I'm cool. This brings me to what I believe is the fundamental difference between how I judge/make cards vs how others judge/make cards. I get the idea that, when making cards, most people seem to be pretending they work for Wizards. When I make cards, I pretend that I own Wizards. Because of this, I don't care too much about things such as NWO (To be honest, I've never read a single article, post, etc that Maro has ever written). I make my own world order. With this in mind, and as a creative person, I value creativity more than anything. Give me an employee that can develop stories and cool characters/cards, then I'll hand his ideas over the department that makes his vision a reality. That's not to say that how I think of things is correct (as a matter of fact it's almost assuredly wrong), but that's just how I do things.
Edit: I just want to point out that I understand that "the department that makes his ideas a reality" is just as important as the department coming up with the ideas. It's just that, if I did work for Wizards, the ideas department is the one I'd wanna work in. I'd rather hand my ideas off to Bravelion and let him handle the technical stuff. He likes it!
(22 Total) - October 2014; December 2014; January 2015; April 2015; June 2015; August 2015; September 2015; November 2015; December 2015(T); January 2016; March 2016(T); April 2016; June 2016; October 2016; December 2016(T); February 2017; April 2017; December 2017; November 2018(T); January 2019; April 2019; June 2019
(8 Total) - May 2015; May 2016; June 2016; August 2016; October 2016; December 2016; October 2017; May 2019
(7 Total) - September 2015; October 2015; January 2016; March 2016; April 2016; July 2016(T); March 2019(T)
Overseer of the Cliffs
Creature - Ogre Shaman (R)
Whenever a land is put into a graveyard from the battlefield, Overseer of the Cliffs deals 2 damage to that land's controller.
3/3
Dingus Egg on legs. How creative. And it's getting votes.
I think Flatline's card is fine, if pushed. The first time I read it though, I thought it was exactly the same as Zo-Zu the Punisher. Not the most creative, but no one can be 100% creative all the time. And hey, each of us forgets a bit of precedence every now and again. I value creativity highly as well, but the people voting for it have their own metrics.
I believe that there is creativity in Flatline's card. I especially like it because it curves out nicely with the new era of CMC ≥ 4 LD.
I also think that Dingus Egg is a great model for how LD effects should proceed in contemporary design. It's established that the LD spells themselves should be neither cheap nor abundant. But the fringe benefits can (and IMO, should) be potent. Flatline's card is an example of how that can look.
Flatline's card also suggests a fun, competitive, non-degenerate, non-griefer LD archetype to me. The execution is straightforward and clean. I like it for all these reasons.
I believe that there is creativity in Flatline's card. I especially like it because it curves out nicely with the new era of CMC ≥ 4 LD.
I also think that Dingus Egg is a great model for how LD effects should proceed in contemporary design. It's established that the LD spells themselves should be neither cheap nor abundant. But the fringe benefits can (and IMO, should) be potent. Flatline's card is an example of how that can look.
Flatline's card also suggests a fun, competitive, non-degenerate, non-griefer LD archetype to me. The execution is straightforward and clean. I like it for all these reasons.
It's copy and paste no matter how you spin it.
Anyone who's been leading the polls all month should be held to a slightly higher standard than copy and paste.
Overseer of the Cliffs
Creature - Ogre Shaman (R)
Whenever a land is put into a graveyard from the battlefield, Overseer of the Cliffs deals 2 damage to that land's controller.
3/3
Dingus Egg on legs. How creative. And it's getting votes.
I said I value creativity, I didn't say I was good at it. I'm sorry my card and post upset you, that certainly wasn't my intention. To be honest, I totally forgot that Dingus Egg existed (I was totally unaware of Zo-Zu the Punisher). I'm not someone that has every card ever made memorized (I've only been playing since Conflux). I generally make my cards up on the spot, and I usually spend a little more time researching my idea, but I've been working 12 hr days lately, and haven't had as much time to look into things. All that being said, I don't see anything wrong with putting an artifact ability onto a creature, maybe it's not my best card ever, but what can you do.
(22 Total) - October 2014; December 2014; January 2015; April 2015; June 2015; August 2015; September 2015; November 2015; December 2015(T); January 2016; March 2016(T); April 2016; June 2016; October 2016; December 2016(T); February 2017; April 2017; December 2017; November 2018(T); January 2019; April 2019; June 2019
(8 Total) - May 2015; May 2016; June 2016; August 2016; October 2016; December 2016; October 2017; May 2019
(7 Total) - September 2015; October 2015; January 2016; March 2016; April 2016; July 2016(T); March 2019(T)
Anyone who's been leading the polls all month should be held to a slightly higher standard than copy and paste.
I say that anyone who's been leading the polls all month should be held to exactly the same standard as everybody else.
And interestingly enough, it's up to each individual voter to decide what that standard is.
You're missing the point. I said nothing about holding varying standards from one competitor to the next. I said anyone who is so good at designing cards that he can lead the polls all month should be held to a standard that doesn't reward the submission of a design that basically already exists. But then again - in a way - you're right, everyone should be held to such a standard.
Ugh, today's coming up round has some really tough choices. There's about five cards I wanna vote for. Gonna have to get really nitpicky to pick the top two.
Votes: Bravelion83, CryoZenith (I like the ability more than the card though)
Haha, too strong or or too boring?
(if boring, *shrug* my intention is not always to be interesting. If too strong, please tell me, I care and want to avoid that mistake at all costs.)
Sorry Cyo, my post probably should have just said "I like the ability". The card's fine. At the time I was thinking that it was both a tad boring and a tad too strong, but after a bit more thought, the ability prevents the card from being boring (also, IMO, it's good to display a new ability on a straight forward card), and I just think that maybe it shouldn't have "can't be regenerated", but I don't think it's a big problem or anything.
As long as I'm here....I'm a little nervous that I might be missing something that would totally break my card from today. I'm mostly nervous about the bottom of the library part. Hopefully I'm not missing something. Here's the card for reference....
Dismissive Advisor
Creature - Human Advisor (U)
If an opponent would put any number of cards on the top or bottom of his or her library, that player puts those cards into his or her graveyard instead.
1/2
"Your ideas are worthless!"
Edit: I changed the card from player to opponent. I think maybe cascade might fill your graveyard up a bit too quickly? I might change it back.
(22 Total) - October 2014; December 2014; January 2015; April 2015; June 2015; August 2015; September 2015; November 2015; December 2015(T); January 2016; March 2016(T); April 2016; June 2016; October 2016; December 2016(T); February 2017; April 2017; December 2017; November 2018(T); January 2019; April 2019; June 2019
(8 Total) - May 2015; May 2016; June 2016; August 2016; October 2016; December 2016; October 2017; May 2019
(7 Total) - September 2015; October 2015; January 2016; March 2016; April 2016; July 2016(T); March 2019(T)
As a real quick example, take MDenham's Errekwor Stone on February 18th. I think I get what it does... it seems cool and creative... but it takes a lot of shortcuts with standard Magic terminology, and I'm left questioning whether I'm reading it as-intended. I'm happy that people did vote for it, I have no problem whatsoever with other people voting for it (my understanding is that people are free to use whatever criteria they want, as long as it's in good faith) but it just doesn't fit the mold for a card that would typically get my vote.
I understand the time it takes to be precise and to put polish on a card, and I also believe that polish and precision are simply good design factors. So is brevity, and I feel like I'm able to appreciate the hard work that goes into making a card very simple. There are a couple designers that I think are really good at that, on a regular basis (Piar, I'm looking at you!) and I tend to vote for them more frequently than other people do, I think.
My card deals damage creatures only so, unless you have a Boros Reckoner or something like that out, I don't see how this wins.
I personally prefer the standard forum format, but it doesn't influence my voting either.
It only hits a creature - you'll need a Stuffy Doll, Spitemare, or Boros Reckoner to hit face for 15 with it.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
For what it's worth, these would be the rulings on that card:
That said... the wording was chosen for a specific purpose, and is almost entirely standard wording. The "one shortcut" I mentioned - making manifesting the top card of your library part of the exchange itself - is the exception, and it exists because the standard wording of "Manifest the top card of your library, then exchange it with target permanent. If they were exchanged this way, put the targeted permanent on top of your library." (which is the functionally equivalent version - leaving out that "If they were exchanged this way" clause makes the ability do things differently when you have an empty library) just doesn't flow as well when you read it. As a result, I'm reasonably certain that Wizards would choose to use the same wording I did. While there's something to be said for precision, sometimes you can be precise to the point of getting in the way of clarity.
(Probably NSFW) So you may have heard I'm trying to write a TV series...
By the way....
Come get some....
But, you know, since I did anyway, I guess what I'd say for that particular card is that I probably wouldn't have used manifest technology for it. We still have morph, we even have stuff like Ixidron... there's more than one way to skin the "face down as a 2/2 creature" cat. I think that doing it as part of an exchange probably warrants a new way, and a separate rules entry, rather than manifest.
Also, the "card" wording in the second line read as very ambiguous to me. The closest templating equivalent I know of is Pull from Eternity, and I assume you intended something very different from that effect. I don't know whether "permanent" or "creature" might have been more appropriate, but I think again that you've entered uncharted rules territory. That's cool, but I'm still left scratching my head at the practical interpretation.
ANYWAY... not trying to turn this into a referendum about a card from a couple days ago. I liked the card. I may (or may not) have voted for it if the templating felt a little more bolted down to me. I could say that about a lot of cards. It's just my personal voting bias.
You know I will!
Yup. Grokability is something everyone on this board naturally leans toward, because a card you have to read more than once to understand is less like to be considered by a person in the first place. Short and sweet typically make things grokable. I know for me if I have to read your card more than once to get what it's trying to do, chances are slim I'm voting for it.
Maybe you are, and that's fine.
An important thing to consider as a designer is mass appeal. The demographic that is interested in playability/spike factors is but one group of many among magic players, and it isn't even the largest. Think of it in terms of a marketing campaign trying to sell a new product and the card's rule text as slogans/ad space. Are most people going to buy into your idea if they don't get your slogan/ad on the first read? No, they're not. If they have to figure it out, it makes them feel stupid, and you can bet people don't like to feel stupid. They'll just move on. The same thing happens with cards. That's why New World Order and the like came to be in the first place: to increase mass appeal by lowering complexity at entry level magic (commons.) Magic popularity has grown instead of declined every year since.
But here is the kicker: You can make a card the is extremely playable/spike oriented and STILL make it intuitive and brief. Often the best designs appeal to many audiences, not just one. In a competition like this it makes sense to design cards that cover many demographics since, despite us as group being rather niche as designers, we all have certain bias to different demographics.
Incidentally, that's where the second ability comes in. Practically speaking, it amounts to "unmorph anything, if you choose to pay its mana cost". The problem is that when it's an instant or a sorcery (or, really, an Aura as well), you can't just say "okay, turn it face up"; you have to go through the normal spell-casting process. So the process ends up being similar to casting things from your graveyard, except this time it's from the battlefield. (Yes, that means that "whenever a creature leaves the battlefield" triggers will get triggered.) The side effect is that it means that for things that can unmorph without problems, they have to go through a slightly more complicated process than just turning it face-up; but it's an existing process, at least.
That said, I don't normally like "cast this from the battlefield" cards because there's rarely a good reason to do it that way instead of just flickering them. This happens to be one of the exceptions where you can't just do that.
(Probably NSFW) So you may have heard I'm trying to write a TV series...
In the case of Ice Cauldron, it's one of those designs that time forgot. As neat as it is once you understand it, I don't think I could get behind it if it were released now. That text box is a hot mess. In my opinion, comprehensibility counts for something.
At that point it could be as simple as "X, T: Note the type and amount of mana used to pay this activation cost." + "T: Add the last noted type and amount of mana to your mana pool." (well, not exactly, as you don't want to be able to activate the second ability without having activated the first ability once), which is a surprisingly short card... but generally that garners complaints about "memory issues" from some people.
(You could even improve the card by basically having the noted mana operate as a stack - the last ability proceeds to also "erase" your last note in addition - but at that point the card might actually be a little too good to be printable.)
(Probably NSFW) So you may have heard I'm trying to write a TV series...
While I agree with most of what IcariiFA and Guesswork are saying as far as cards being straight forward and easy to understand (grokability?), I think I lean a little more towards creativity and fun than most people do (I think I voted for Mario). I put very little stock in things like perfect wording and mana symbols/abilities being in the correct order, as long as I get the idea of what the card does, I'm cool. This brings me to what I believe is the fundamental difference between how I judge/make cards vs how others judge/make cards. I get the idea that, when making cards, most people seem to be pretending they work for Wizards. When I make cards, I pretend that I own Wizards. Because of this, I don't care too much about things such as NWO (To be honest, I've never read a single article, post, etc that Maro has ever written). I make my own world order. With this in mind, and as a creative person, I value creativity more than anything. Give me an employee that can develop stories and cool characters/cards, then I'll hand his ideas over the department that makes his vision a reality. That's not to say that how I think of things is correct (as a matter of fact it's almost assuredly wrong), but that's just how I do things.
Edit: I just want to point out that I understand that "the department that makes his ideas a reality" is just as important as the department coming up with the ideas. It's just that, if I did work for Wizards, the ideas department is the one I'd wanna work in. I'd rather hand my ideas off to Bravelion and let him handle the technical stuff. He likes it!
Dingus Egg on legs. How creative. And it's getting votes.
I also think that Dingus Egg is a great model for how LD effects should proceed in contemporary design. It's established that the LD spells themselves should be neither cheap nor abundant. But the fringe benefits can (and IMO, should) be potent. Flatline's card is an example of how that can look.
Flatline's card also suggests a fun, competitive, non-degenerate, non-griefer LD archetype to me. The execution is straightforward and clean. I like it for all these reasons.
It's copy and paste no matter how you spin it.
Anyone who's been leading the polls all month should be held to a slightly higher standard than copy and paste.
I said I value creativity, I didn't say I was good at it.
And interestingly enough, it's up to each individual voter to decide what that standard is.
You're missing the point. I said nothing about holding varying standards from one competitor to the next. I said anyone who is so good at designing cards that he can lead the polls all month should be held to a standard that doesn't reward the submission of a design that basically already exists. But then again - in a way - you're right, everyone should be held to such a standard.
Sorry Cyo, my post probably should have just said "I like the ability". The card's fine. At the time I was thinking that it was both a tad boring and a tad too strong, but after a bit more thought, the ability prevents the card from being boring (also, IMO, it's good to display a new ability on a straight forward card), and I just think that maybe it shouldn't have "can't be regenerated", but I don't think it's a big problem or anything.
As long as I'm here....I'm a little nervous that I might be missing something that would totally break my card from today. I'm mostly nervous about the bottom of the library part. Hopefully I'm not missing something. Here's the card for reference....
Creature - Human Advisor (U)
If an opponent would put any number of cards on the top or bottom of his or her library, that player puts those cards into his or her graveyard instead.
1/2
"Your ideas are worthless!"
Edit: I changed the card from player to opponent. I think maybe cascade might fill your graveyard up a bit too quickly? I might change it back.
greats minds etc.