Yep. If there's some kind of ridiculous pileup for third (or second, or first - basically, more than about six cards making "top 3"), I will probably reconsider (and/or throw a tiebreaker poll up), but four cards doesn't bother me too much.
EDIT: Gerrard's Mom is down one point because Firebrand couldn't be bothered to read the very, very short rules and actually vote for two people. Rather than trying to figure out who Firebrand's second vote is for, the single vote will just get ignored, as with the DCC.
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.
Yep. If there's some kind of ridiculous pileup for third (or second, or first - basically, more than about six cards making "top 3"), I will probably reconsider (and/or throw a tiebreaker poll up), but four cards doesn't bother me too much.
EDIT: Gerrard's Mom is down one point because Firebrand couldn't be bothered to read the very, very short rules and actually vote for two people. Rather than trying to figure out who Firebrand's second vote is for, the single vote will just get ignored, as with the DCC.
I can see a lot of conflict where you're making a set based on somewhat randomly chosen cards (as in the cards going in aren't deliberately chosen to fit into the set). For instance, what happens when one player makes a card that uses +1/+1 counters and another player one with -1/-1 counters? This is also going to make the customary one-lord-per-color not work out.
I can see a lot of conflict where you're making a set based on somewhat randomly chosen cards (as in the cards going in aren't deliberately chosen to fit into the set). For instance, what happens when one player makes a card that uses +1/+1 counters and another player one with -1/-1 counters? This is also going to make the customary one-lord-per-color not work out.
-1/-1 counters in the core set? I don't think many people will attempt that. Even so, if someone does at it wins, everyone else will just have to follow the precedent.
Over the course of Friday I will be assigning people teams for the two CCL-style rounds; critiques for the first round will overlap with entry time for the second round.
Argh, this schedule is crazy for me, I never manage to get on time. Why is it so different to the DCC's?
Also, is having missed the three first days an insurmountable disadvantage? Should I just retire?
For what it's worth, even being down ~25 points shouldn't be insurmountable. The scoring structure is designed to give people a chance even if they completely get blown out in one of the three sections before we cut to Top 8.
As far as why it's at a different time from the DCC: I don't particularly want to wake up at too damn early in the morning just to have enough time to get the DCC and this up, handle milking the goat in the morning, and get ready for work. So this got shifted to starting in the evening as that's when I had time available to deal with it.
(On the plus side, I only have to milk the goat for another three days, and things do slow down somewhat for Rounds 2-5.)
Since this round and the next round are being run CCL-style, the correct answer to that question is "it depends on the opinion of the people critiquing you".
That said, it's clear enough that your cards form a cycle; if anyone feels they need to clarify how their cards are a cycle, mentioning the common factor would work.
Thanks. I don't know if I'll actually do so or not. I just wanted to know.
The lucky charms and the Ring of Thune cycle are horizontal artifact cycles, and there's space in the skeleton, so it seemed like an interesting option.
For anyone not familiar with the CCL, putting your team name somewhere in your post (or even as the title of your post) will make critiques much easier for everyone. FYI.
I'd like to start off by saying that we're supposed to be designing a Core Set. We're not trying to make flashy cards for the sake of being new, cards with new keywords, cards that should have been in either the previous set or the following set or cards the new player doesn't understand or like. This set is an introduction to the base ideas of each color and done very simply and with few words. Some of the submissions so far and even some of the cards that have made it into the skeleton are simply not Core Set cards. We don't get to have any reprints, so we're not going to get bread and butter simplicity, but that shouldn't stop you from making very simple cards. Again, people shouldn't be getting
points for flashy in a Core Set, you should get points for practicality, purpose, simplicity in the face of no reprints and effects conscious of newer players. Look at the average "M" set card and tell me how many lines of text it has. Common, Uncommon, Rare, Mythic - they're usually extremely simple unless trumped by flavor. That should be what we're making. I'll end this by saying that, for example there are only four other cycles of cards out of this entire lot of submissions that I would consider even close to Core printable. If it were kosher, I would review each and every submission.
Snipped from the current review thread - I think Sven's sentiments here are well worthy of discussion. What does the fact that this is a Core Set mean to the group - both as designers and as reviewers / voters? Do you think that it is important or that it is just a backdrop? Should new mechanics be excluded? Limited just to suggested 'returning' mechanics a la Exalted? Or be encouraged?
Incidentally I personally love feedback and so would welcome a critique of my submission here or via PM or wherever else you want to put it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DCI L3 Judge; Regional Coordinator, British Isles & South Africa
I run a Tumblr for Magic-related statistics, graphs, and quizzes. Come check it out!
When I do my crits, I am probably going to be less turned on by cards that have keywords. If the keyword or ability word is simple, then we can probably just print the ability straight on to the card without the keyword.
That said, I agree with Sven. The cards should be simple and easy to grasp.
Snipped from the current review thread - I think Sven's sentiments here are well worthy of discussion. What does the fact that this is a Core Set mean to the group - both as designers and as reviewers / voters? Do you think that it is important or that it is just a backdrop? Should new mechanics be excluded? Limited just to suggested 'returning' mechanics a la Exalted? Or be encouraged?
Incidentally I personally love feedback and so would welcome a critique of my submission here or via PM or wherever else you want to put it.
TBQH, I think a returning mechanic would be acceptable - it's core set tradition, after all - but not necessary.
New mechanics are outright.
Spellshapers would be a good example of a returning mechanical theme, as Slivers are shaping up to be for M14, in place of the returning mechanic.
I would definitely be for a discussion of some sort. These are just my views and represent how I have been and how I will continue to be voting and creating cards. I only decided to voice my opinion now because it was the first time we've had a true forum to speak our minds. If the views of the whole disagree with my sentiments then I have no problems changing my design and voting patterns.
That being said, I actually have a large problem with Spellshapers in Core. If you have been listening to Rosewater's "Drive to Work" podcasts, he said during the Odyssy Block episode that one of the biggest failings of the set was that from their market research, players hate to do things like discarding cards or sacrifice creatures even if it would mean winning the game. That to me says it shouldn't be something in Core.
And lastly, I don't really have a problem with a returning mechanic. They've been returning them for a while now in Core. I do, however, think it should be something fairly simple.
I agree with Sven. In general, I think a card should have no more than three "abilities;" the cards I like best tend to have two "abilities". Within a core set, I would restrict commons to a single "ability", and most other cards to two.
(By the way, an effect like
"Kindle Hex deals 3 damage to target creature or player and 3 damage to up to one other target creature or player. If only red mana was spent to cast Kindle Hex, deal 6 damage to those creatures or players instead"
is between two and three abilities in my book).
If there are five creatures out with two abilities each, that's ten abilities to remember. Maybe not much to vets like us, but for a new person that's completely overwhelming!
Even worse, a new player can find themselves getting demolished by experienced players for reasons they don't completely understand, which is very frustrating.
Things I would discourage in a core set:
1) Complex cards (>3 lines of text, >2 abilities) (planeswalkers excepted)
2) Cards that require non-mana payment (newbies don't like paying life/sacrificing/discarding)
3) Protection from X (bad feels, and DEBT is somewhat complex)
4) Exile (second graveyard? potentially confusing without much added benefit)
I would welcome the return of a basic mechanic: Most specifically, I feel that cycling and kicker are very good.
Cheap cycling can help mitigate mana screw/flood, does not complicate the board (cycling only matters while in hand) and works with the previous block.
Kicker increases design space and play options while remaining relatively easy to understand.
I completely agree with Kicker. Not having any reprints is going to make vanilla guys tough to come by. Kicker lets us cheat that in interesting yet simple ways. For instance:
Not Horned TurtleU
Creature - Thing
Kicker 2
If ~ was kicked, it enters the battlefield with a +1/+1 counter on it.
0/3
Not Pillarfield Ox1W
Creature - Thing
Kicker 2
If ~ was kicked, it enters the battlefield with a +1/+1 counter on it.
1/3
Not Hill Giant1G
Creature - Thing
Kicker 2
If ~ was kicked, it enters the battlefield with a +1/+1 counter on it.
2/2
Etc
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Oh, what's that you say, Karn? You remove poison counters? You should tell that to Mr. Rosewater.
I pitched evoke because I think it's flavorful, not sure if it's too complex. Evoke's "problem" is that people want to hold on and cast the guy for full value, but I think this is also a problem with kicker, which has been suggested, and bloodthirst, which was a returning mechanic. Exalted also forces you to "sacrifice" attacking with multiple creatures in order to just go with one.
Another concern I have is that I wonder if two uncommon and two rare cycles will actually fit, without stepping on each other's toes.
Does the vertical cycle have to go all the way to mythic rare?
Nope. Just a common, an uncommon, and a rare.
With respect to vanilla commons: you guys will be able to start throwing those in when Rounds 4 and 5 roll around. (Or the common entry of your cycle could be vanilla, if you'd like.)
Can I make a suggestion for the next Pro-Tour to pretty please NOT be a set design? Not only it creates a suuuuper cramped timeline that punishes having a slightly busy schedule, it also invites rushed card design and the necessity for considerations that ultimately detract from pure card design.
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
EDIT: Gerrard's Mom is down one point because Firebrand couldn't be bothered to read the very, very short rules and actually vote for two people. Rather than trying to figure out who Firebrand's second vote is for, the single vote will just get ignored, as with the DCC.
(Probably NSFW) So you may have heard I'm trying to write a TV series...
Most Nominated for Random Categories, 2013
Also, is having missed the three first days an insurmountable disadvantage? Should I just retire?
I can see a lot of conflict where you're making a set based on somewhat randomly chosen cards (as in the cards going in aren't deliberately chosen to fit into the set). For instance, what happens when one player makes a card that uses +1/+1 counters and another player one with -1/-1 counters? This is also going to make the customary one-lord-per-color not work out.
-1/-1 counters in the core set? I don't think many people will attempt that. Even so, if someone does at it wins, everyone else will just have to follow the precedent.
(Probably NSFW) So you may have heard I'm trying to write a TV series...
Most Nominated for Random Categories, 2013
As far as why it's at a different time from the DCC: I don't particularly want to wake up at too damn early in the morning just to have enough time to get the DCC and this up, handle milking the goat in the morning, and get ready for work. So this got shifted to starting in the evening as that's when I had time available to deal with it.
(On the plus side, I only have to milk the goat for another three days, and things do slow down somewhat for Rounds 2-5.)
(Probably NSFW) So you may have heard I'm trying to write a TV series...
Most Nominated for Random Categories, 2013
Emille, Seven-Sting Dancer Shalin Nariya
That said, it's clear enough that your cards form a cycle; if anyone feels they need to clarify how their cards are a cycle, mentioning the common factor would work.
(Probably NSFW) So you may have heard I'm trying to write a TV series...
Most Nominated for Random Categories, 2013
(Probably NSFW) So you may have heard I'm trying to write a TV series...
Most Nominated for Random Categories, 2013
Thanks. I don't know if I'll actually do so or not. I just wanted to know.
The lucky charms and the Ring of Thune cycle are horizontal artifact cycles, and there's space in the skeleton, so it seemed like an interesting option.
Mechanic Creator's Contest III- Winner
[Clan Flamingo]
Snipped from the current review thread - I think Sven's sentiments here are well worthy of discussion. What does the fact that this is a Core Set mean to the group - both as designers and as reviewers / voters? Do you think that it is important or that it is just a backdrop? Should new mechanics be excluded? Limited just to suggested 'returning' mechanics a la Exalted? Or be encouraged?
Incidentally I personally love feedback and so would welcome a critique of my submission here or via PM or wherever else you want to put it.
I run a Tumblr for Magic-related statistics, graphs, and quizzes. Come check it out!
That said, I agree with Sven. The cards should be simple and easy to grasp.
BGStandard Green AggroGB
UWRGModern Saheeli CobraGRWU
UBRGLegacy StormGRBU
Wizards Certified Rules Advisor
TBQH, I think a returning mechanic would be acceptable - it's core set tradition, after all - but not necessary.
New mechanics are outright.
Spellshapers would be a good example of a returning mechanical theme, as Slivers are shaping up to be for M14, in place of the returning mechanic.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
That being said, I actually have a large problem with Spellshapers in Core. If you have been listening to Rosewater's "Drive to Work" podcasts, he said during the Odyssy Block episode that one of the biggest failings of the set was that from their market research, players hate to do things like discarding cards or sacrifice creatures even if it would mean winning the game. That to me says it shouldn't be something in Core.
And lastly, I don't really have a problem with a returning mechanic. They've been returning them for a while now in Core. I do, however, think it should be something fairly simple.
(By the way, an effect like
"Kindle Hex deals 3 damage to target creature or player and 3 damage to up to one other target creature or player. If only red mana was spent to cast Kindle Hex, deal 6 damage to those creatures or players instead"
is between two and three abilities in my book).
If there are five creatures out with two abilities each, that's ten abilities to remember. Maybe not much to vets like us, but for a new person that's completely overwhelming!
Even worse, a new player can find themselves getting demolished by experienced players for reasons they don't completely understand, which is very frustrating.
Things I would discourage in a core set:
1) Complex cards (>3 lines of text, >2 abilities) (planeswalkers excepted)
2) Cards that require non-mana payment (newbies don't like paying life/sacrificing/discarding)
3) Protection from X (bad feels, and DEBT is somewhat complex)
4) Exile (second graveyard? potentially confusing without much added benefit)
I would welcome the return of a basic mechanic: Most specifically, I feel that cycling and kicker are very good.
Cheap cycling can help mitigate mana screw/flood, does not complicate the board (cycling only matters while in hand) and works with the previous block.
Kicker increases design space and play options while remaining relatively easy to understand.
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%
Not Horned Turtle U
Creature - Thing
Kicker 2
If ~ was kicked, it enters the battlefield with a +1/+1 counter on it.
0/3
Not Pillarfield Ox 1W
Creature - Thing
Kicker 2
If ~ was kicked, it enters the battlefield with a +1/+1 counter on it.
1/3
Not Hill Giant 1G
Creature - Thing
Kicker 2
If ~ was kicked, it enters the battlefield with a +1/+1 counter on it.
2/2
Etc
Another concern I have is that I wonder if two uncommon and two rare cycles will actually fit, without stepping on each other's toes.
BGStandard Green AggroGB
UWRGModern Saheeli CobraGRWU
UBRGLegacy StormGRBU
Wizards Certified Rules Advisor
Emille, Seven-Sting Dancer Shalin Nariya
Nope. Just a common, an uncommon, and a rare.
With respect to vanilla commons: you guys will be able to start throwing those in when Rounds 4 and 5 roll around. (Or the common entry of your cycle could be vanilla, if you'd like.)
(Probably NSFW) So you may have heard I'm trying to write a TV series...
Most Nominated for Random Categories, 2013