I can guarantee that the next one will not be "design a set" if I'm running it. However, considering the timing of this Pro Tour and the M14 release, I couldn't pass up the opportunity to theme it the way I did.
It was my understanding that we were making all the flashy stuff first, then filling out the skeleton with cards specifically designed for limited and such.
That said I disagree with the argument that designers are submitting overly complex cards. They may be pushing power level and board complexity but generally they are simple cards that new players can understand easily. Since they are uncommons and rares, they won't impact limited to a great extent. Constructed can handle both the power level and board complexity of the current skeleton and designs.
The problem lies in that everyone is designing cards that they think would sell the set. Thus, we end up with nothing but cards of high power level. The set needs some limited and bad cards to balance the other awesome tournament defining cards we are creating.
There should be a challenge to create undercosted but interesting cards for casual and limited play. Other challenges could specificially be a challenge to make simple cards. For example: "Create a card with 10 words or less of rules text"
To the people commenting on the bombastic quality of my cards: Where were you during the 2 years in a row that the Titans were printed? And what's so "rare" or "weird" about a creature with 5 power dealing 2 or less damage? It happens aaaall the time, it's called "being blocked by more than one creature".
The Titans are mythic rare. Your cycle is not. The Titans didn't introduce a new ability word. Your cycle proposes that we do so.
Blocking with multiple creatures does not happen all the time. In fact, in my experience, it's a very rare occasion. Besides, this is a core set. It's meant to introduce new players to Magic. How many new players double or triple block? How many of them realize that doing so will trigger this ability? In how many situations will double or triple blocking causing Ephemeral Ragestoker's ability to trigger actually be relevant? It gets blocked by six 1/1 creatures. Yay, it deals 2 damage to each of them! That's almost pointless. It would only mean something if the last creature had 2 toughness, or if it were blocked by an X/4 and an X/2. Or perhaps if it had trample, which it doesn't.
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.
What, considerations like how the card might fit in a set? Oh no!
Looting Wizard - wow, this is pretty good, and fairly solid and fair.
Brimstone Pyromancer - this, however, is just odd. If it said "when ~ enters the battlefield, return two at random", I'd be all for it - of course, it's still a 2/2, and costs absurd, but whatev. This is too much variation in the cycle IMO. Had it let you cast a sorcery in your yard at random w/o paying it's mana cost, that'd be escalation that fit / the theme too (and could hurt since red decks have X sorceries...).
Hellkite Wizard - See, now this doesn't even have the word "random" on there at all. And it's not a CIP ability, so I have no reason to think it's connected to the other 2 of the cycle. It's also pretty silly, as it seems like it wants to be BOTH the giant dragon of the set, and a wizard that casts spells.
I'd actually be very interested in this if all 3 were different creature types but all wizards (the first, a 1/1 human? The 2nd a 2/2 ogre? and third a moderate 4/4 or 5/5 dragon?) I don't know how you'd switch up the CIP ability - actually, I do: 1/1 - play 1 random from yours, 2/2 - play 1 random from opponent's, 4/4 - play 1 random from each player's graveyard! That's a cycle. It's a fun cycle. And cost-correctly it might even be competitive.
Bonded Wolf - I thought 3/3 for 2G was pretty good. This is sligthly better, and I'm worried about power creep. However, I do like that it's a 2/2 wolf for 2G.
Bonded Baloth - same with 5/5 trampler for 3GG.
Bonded Troll - this feels like the weakest of the cycle, and certainly not competitive - off for the rare.
Thoughts:
For the common, I'd much rather the 1st be a 1/2 Spider w/ Deathtouch with the donate-counter-option. Maybe even a 1/3 DT for 1GG? This might not be constructed competitive, but it'd make a dent in limited.
For the uncommon, I like the idea of a wurm with this ability and giving 3 counts. Maybe a 4/2 for 4GG with trample. Not like Yavimaya Wurm hasn't been obsoleted before.
Finally, for your troll rare, it seems obvious that this needs Hexproof. I would love to see this as a 3/2... but donating 3 counters seems pretty sick.
Alternatively, making these "+1/+1 counter lords", and having them give "any creature with a +1/+1 counter on it" their keyword (DT or vigilance, trample, and hexproof?) might be pretty darned spiffy.
Of the two, the latter cycle seems the most vertical, even if the rare is a a big letdown. I like the idea of having to think about what gets the +1/+1 counter when it CIP, and I like that on the ones with a keyword that it makes you consider losing tempo for bolstering your keyword-haver. This is a very green ability, and if the set has CIP abilities, these are simple and fair CIP abilities that are never "wasted" (in contrast, a Giant Growth CIP ability is wasted post-*** on a non-haster), meaning they're feel-good.
Edit:
Apprentice Hypnotist - 2 for 1 on a common? I can't evaluate this card w/o knowing the format, but it could be pretty strong. But I don't like that it refers to CMC, new players don't know what that is and it feels... messy.
Seasoned Hypnotist - Yup, that'd be the uncommon version.
Master Hypnotist - It's rare because it's not restricted?
Thoughts: I'd much rather these be "as long as so and so is in play", which would let you tier keywords - with the first having no keyword.. or perhaps flash?, the 2nd flying, and the rare hexproof. This would give your opponent a means to "steal back his stuff" - which I think would make these cards A LOT more fun to play against, and more challenging to play with.
Also, I think the 1/1, 2/2, and 3/3 is too linear. I don't understand why a master hypnotist is a physical hill giant.
Finally, I think it's clear that all of the cycle being hypnotists and stealing creatures is pretty weak. It would be a lot more clever, and show the range of blue, if they stole different types of things. The common could steal artifacts (and perhaps unequip them as he does if they're equipment???). The uncommon could steal a creature. The rare could steal anything. This would get rid of the clunky mana cost language and add some variety to the game, to limited, and to deck contruction.
Of the three cycles, I think Team Seagull's has the most chance of giving exciting and innovative gameplay with minor tweaks. Team Puffin's, however, is the most straightforward and printable of the trio. Finally, Team Sandpiper's are perhaps the most "fun". I can just imagine playing against the red common in limited and hoping that he doesn't get his black sorcery speed removal spell back. And I can imagine playing with it, playing the black removal spell on something less-than-killable, and hoping to get it back. Mind you, neither the uncommon or rare feel that fun or exciting - but with a little work...
Not to step on your toes there Big Cal but this is the second time you've posted a card/cards strikingly similar to another player's. I don't have a huge problem changing mine, but it's a tad suspicious.
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.
This sort of thing happens all the time, I have no reason whatsoever to think that Big_Cal intentionally copied anyone else's cards. There are significant differences in these cards as well, particularly the rares. If either of you feel like making changes to differentiate your submission, go ahead, but I would have no trouble critiquing these separately.
It's not that I think you're plagiarizing anyone, it's that there are only 20-something of us. When you post a card, take a look afterwards. My girlfriend was sitting with me this morning as I read your post and I listed off at least 10 ideas for a cycle off the top of my head. To say there is little design space is simply wrong and to have the only group with four members have a doubled-up cycle is lazy. I am not and have not attacked your character in any way, so I apologize if you think that.
@GM: I disagree. I've never seen a cycle this close. When two of the three cards in each submission are this close to interchangeable I think there's a problem.
That said I disagree with the argument that designers are submitting overly complex cards. They may be pushing power level and board complexity but generally they are simple cards that new players can understand easily. Since they are uncommons and rares, they won't impact limited to a great extent. Constructed can handle both the power level and board complexity of the current skeleton and designs.
I'm inclined to disagree. Learning a new game is difficult even if the rules are simple, and Magic is one of the more complex games; almost impossible to learn without somebody holding your hand throughout the process.
Each card on their own might be understandable, but put five somewhat wordy cards on the table and information overload/analysis paralysis can easily occur for new players.
Accessibility is very important for games, and it's best to err on the side of too simple when it comes to a game like MtG. After all, a player who gets hooked will have plenty of time to learn all of the complexity, whereas somebody who leaves early won't even be a regular customer.
The problem lies in that everyone is designing cards that they think would sell the set. Thus, we end up with nothing but cards of high power level. The set needs some limited and bad cards to balance the other awesome tournament defining cards we are creating.
I don't necessarily think a set needs bad cards (although it's good for business). Take Modern Masters for example; the vast majority of cards are playable.
Big Cal: I would prefer if you checked your submission after posting, and if it synced up with another person's, to change your submission. It makes it harder on the judges when two submissions are extremely similar, and obviously less fun as well.
There is a LOT of design space for every color, even while keeping things simple. For green,
generate mana
search for land/creature cards
reveal for land/creature cards
+X/+X self/other
regenerate self/other
trample/reach self/other
overrun effect
return cards to hand/top of library
tokens
these can be spells, ETB effects, leaves play effects, activated abilities, triggered abilities, enchantments, auras..
There is no reason Big_Cal should ever have to change his submission. That said, when I submit my design I normally look over the rest to see if my design is similar, only because I know I will get less votes for having a design that is close to somebody else's.
Also, accusing someone of plagiarism is a serious offense. If you believe somebody is doing intentionally, you should talk to a mod, not drag their name through the mud out in the open.
I agree that Big Cal shouldn't have to change his submission and I have no reason to believe he's plagiarizing.. with his design record plagiarizing doesn't make sense. And it's not like the mechanics y'all chose are super unique.. if anything, they're the most straightforward.
Also, accusing someone of plagiarism is a serious offense. If you believe somebody is doing intentionally, you should talk to a mod, not drag their name through the mud out in the open.
Not at you, Koopa, but at the situation - we have three mods in the PT plus the one running it, so it's not like there's any shortage of mods to contact if someone actually thinks there's any plagiarism going on.
Also, I'd like to remind people that if they haven't finished their critiques of Round 2 cards, they have just over twelve hours to do so.
Again, I am not and have not accused him of plagiarism. I need to make that very clear because it's being brought up. I'm not trying to attack you in any way, Big Cal. I''m saying there are only 20-something of us and only 4 of us in our bracket and that it seems odd that he would choose to submit cards that are very close to another when there are so many possible choices. It isn't a question of copying someone else, it's that of eating space when there is so much to choose from. There are so many possible cards to design that posting near-duplicates shouldn't need to happen.
I'm not asking Big Cal to change his submission, he's free to do whatever he likes. However, the onus is on one of us to change our submissions for the sake of variety and to make the judging process easier. I already have a few others drawn up and I'll be posting one of them before the deadline.
Do you have any reasonin for that or just think that I 'should'?
Because it passes from saying "I think my submission is good and should make it into the set." to "I think my submission is better than yours specifically." It changes the contest from community friendly to cut-throat when we should be designing a quality set and having fun. I'm not saying it isn't still a contest at the end of the day, but duplicates lend themselves to apprehensiveness between the two designers. Every single person's design would change if they thought it was worse than another person's. The fact that it hasn't and is so similar to another is the same as sending a PM to the designer saying "Mine is better.". Everyone should have winning in mind, but there's no need to pit two designs and their designers against themselves this early.
I think the nature of this forum dictates that we all have a big emotional stake in our own creativity, so I understand how this is a touchy discussion. In the extreme example where two people think of the exact same card independently, though, I think it is reasonable to expect the person who posted later to come up with a new idea. As I said before, I personally don't think these cards are too close, since we have a vertical cycle, but that is unfortunately more of a subjective call. My suggestion is that, in the future, it's probably a good idea to review competing submissions and try to differentiate your submission if you think it would be difficult to judge them separately.
If they were expensive and large effects, it would be cool to get them out early and then pop them later, but they mostly just feel like sorceries with weird delayed kicker.
I appreciate this critique but I disagree if only because I was limited to a cycle of uncommons. Bombastic effects like the ones you're talking about appear more at rare, which I would like to see. Unfortunately, however, cest la vie.
EDIT: As for the issue at hand...this is a sticky situation. The cards are somewhat similar, but tackling this out in the open is clearly less constructive than it is detrimental to the core spirit of fun that this contest is meant to inculcate. MDenham has already made it clear that there are multiple mods to take care of accusations of something as serious as plagerism. Let's end the public conversation here and get back to making cards.
Oh, geeze. I thought it said the due date was 8PM Friday. I'd have changed my submission yesterday like I said I would had I known. The Troll would have been tweaked to a 2/2 and I didn't even put up the flavor text had I even intended to keep these cards.
Scoreboard and skeleton updated to reflect Round 2 results.
Bolded names won their team and had their cycles included. (Apologies to Svennihilator, who didn't win his team but had a higher score than Savia, who did win... hers? PM me if I'm guessing wrong on pronouns there; I'll fix it.)
The first number would be your score if this were actually the CCL, to two decimal places. The second number is the PT score after applying the curve but before rounding. The third number, in parentheses, is the PT score after rounding towards 10 (scores 10 and above are truncated, scores below 10 have the next higher whole number used instead).
Oh, I didn't know that these scores were what was going to be going in the set. I thought the critiques were, well, critiques and then we'd be voting like the last rounds. I don't think I understand the point of the critiques themselves. I figured they'd be something to look at before voting to help make informed decisions. I've been putting a lot of time into those :(.
Ryoma Echizen: Vigilance isn't a very green ability; only thirteen creatures in all of magic, one of which needs white to gain vigilance. A cycle of spiders with reach might have been better.
Green has only recently (beginning with Lorwyn) been given secondary status with vigilance. But green clearly has vigilance in its modern color pie. I took inspiration from Brushstrider and Wilt-Leaf Cavaliers. Joraga Bard and Beacon Behemoth show that green can grant vigilance to others. Favor of the Overbeing clearly shows that vigilance is a green ability by requiring a creature to be green to receive its benefit. Axebane Stag is a giant elk being huge. Elks are allowed to be giants just like spiders.
My goal was to explore design space that hasn't been as richly tapped and to give an identity to a creature type without one.
@Svennihlator: The name of your rare submission bears a striking resemblance to mine. It should show you how easy it is to make similar stuff unintentionally. There's not a lot of design space out there. That's a major reason why I tried to go in a different direction flavorfully than normal. (Elks instead of wolves or elementals or spiders.)
Yah, I was in a tough spot though. Like I said earlier, I'd designed these cards two days ago and PM'd MDenham yesterday. Had I not already chosen the name and PM'd them to Mdenham to at least prove I had indeed designed a cycle and wasn't pulling it out of nowhere then I'd have changed the name.
That being said, I think names and design space are different beasts. I wont get into that though and I'll say that you're right and had the circumstances been different I would have changed the name.
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.
Ah damn, I missed this round by 30 minutes I forgot that today is Friday.
E: Should I still do critiques and just rejoin next round?
Yes. (This was also the advice I gave to Proph last night on IRC.)
Sven: Nope, these two rounds are running exactly like the CCL (aside from the final "grade on a curve" bit, which is mostly to make keep things fairly consistent from round to round).
Just to let people know what the next round is going to be: it's Design-A-Booster! You'll have thirteen days to submit up to three boosters which are each assumed to have a foil card in them (so 9 commons, 3 uncommons, one rare or mythic, and one card of any rarity of your choice; you can skip posting the basic land, we know what those are :-P), and then we'll have a poll (or two) and the top 9 boosters will get included.
Well, hopefully they will, at least; if we have collisions at any slot, cards from lower-ranked entries will be included to fill holes so that we get 126 cards into the set from that round. (In the case of running out of any given color/rarity pair, preference will be given to the higher-scoring boosters.)
Yes. (This was also the advice I gave to Proph last night on IRC.)
Sven: Nope, these two rounds are running exactly like the CCL (aside from the final "grade on a curve" bit, which is mostly to make keep things fairly consistent from round to round).
Just to let people know what the next round is going to be: it's Design-A-Booster! You'll have thirteen days to submit up to three boosters which are each assumed to have a foil card in them (so 9 commons, 3 uncommons, one rare or mythic, and one card of any rarity of your choice; you can skip posting the basic land, we know what those are :-P), and then we'll have a poll (or two) and the top 9 boosters will get included.
Well, hopefully they will, at least; if we have collisions at any slot, cards from lower-ranked entries will be included to fill holes so that we get 126 cards into the set from that round. (In the case of running out of any given color/rarity pair, preference will be given to the higher-scoring boosters.)
I assume that means we will be designing 32 new cards?
(Probably NSFW) So you may have heard I'm trying to write a TV series...
Most Nominated for Random Categories, 2013
That said I disagree with the argument that designers are submitting overly complex cards. They may be pushing power level and board complexity but generally they are simple cards that new players can understand easily. Since they are uncommons and rares, they won't impact limited to a great extent. Constructed can handle both the power level and board complexity of the current skeleton and designs.
The problem lies in that everyone is designing cards that they think would sell the set. Thus, we end up with nothing but cards of high power level. The set needs some limited and bad cards to balance the other awesome tournament defining cards we are creating.
There should be a challenge to create undercosted but interesting cards for casual and limited play. Other challenges could specificially be a challenge to make simple cards. For example: "Create a card with 10 words or less of rules text"
The Titans are mythic rare. Your cycle is not. The Titans didn't introduce a new ability word. Your cycle proposes that we do so.
Blocking with multiple creatures does not happen all the time. In fact, in my experience, it's a very rare occasion. Besides, this is a core set. It's meant to introduce new players to Magic. How many new players double or triple block? How many of them realize that doing so will trigger this ability? In how many situations will double or triple blocking causing Ephemeral Ragestoker's ability to trigger actually be relevant? It gets blocked by six 1/1 creatures. Yay, it deals 2 damage to each of them! That's almost pointless. It would only mean something if the last creature had 2 toughness, or if it were blocked by an X/4 and an X/2. Or perhaps if it had trample, which it doesn't.
What, considerations like how the card might fit in a set? Oh no!
Brimstone Pyromancer - this, however, is just odd. If it said "when ~ enters the battlefield, return two at random", I'd be all for it - of course, it's still a 2/2, and costs absurd, but whatev. This is too much variation in the cycle IMO. Had it let you cast a sorcery in your yard at random w/o paying it's mana cost, that'd be escalation that fit / the theme too (and could hurt since red decks have X sorceries...).
Hellkite Wizard - See, now this doesn't even have the word "random" on there at all. And it's not a CIP ability, so I have no reason to think it's connected to the other 2 of the cycle. It's also pretty silly, as it seems like it wants to be BOTH the giant dragon of the set, and a wizard that casts spells.
I'd actually be very interested in this if all 3 were different creature types but all wizards (the first, a 1/1 human? The 2nd a 2/2 ogre? and third a moderate 4/4 or 5/5 dragon?) I don't know how you'd switch up the CIP ability - actually, I do: 1/1 - play 1 random from yours, 2/2 - play 1 random from opponent's, 4/4 - play 1 random from each player's graveyard! That's a cycle. It's a fun cycle. And cost-correctly it might even be competitive.
Bonded Wolf - I thought 3/3 for 2G was pretty good. This is sligthly better, and I'm worried about power creep. However, I do like that it's a 2/2 wolf for 2G.
Bonded Baloth - same with 5/5 trampler for 3GG.
Bonded Troll - this feels like the weakest of the cycle, and certainly not competitive - off for the rare.
Thoughts:
For the common, I'd much rather the 1st be a 1/2 Spider w/ Deathtouch with the donate-counter-option. Maybe even a 1/3 DT for 1GG? This might not be constructed competitive, but it'd make a dent in limited.
For the uncommon, I like the idea of a wurm with this ability and giving 3 counts. Maybe a 4/2 for 4GG with trample. Not like Yavimaya Wurm hasn't been obsoleted before.
Finally, for your troll rare, it seems obvious that this needs Hexproof. I would love to see this as a 3/2... but donating 3 counters seems pretty sick.
Alternatively, making these "+1/+1 counter lords", and having them give "any creature with a +1/+1 counter on it" their keyword (DT or vigilance, trample, and hexproof?) might be pretty darned spiffy.
Of the two, the latter cycle seems the most vertical, even if the rare is a a big letdown. I like the idea of having to think about what gets the +1/+1 counter when it CIP, and I like that on the ones with a keyword that it makes you consider losing tempo for bolstering your keyword-haver. This is a very green ability, and if the set has CIP abilities, these are simple and fair CIP abilities that are never "wasted" (in contrast, a Giant Growth CIP ability is wasted post-*** on a non-haster), meaning they're feel-good.
Edit:
Apprentice Hypnotist - 2 for 1 on a common? I can't evaluate this card w/o knowing the format, but it could be pretty strong. But I don't like that it refers to CMC, new players don't know what that is and it feels... messy.
Seasoned Hypnotist - Yup, that'd be the uncommon version.
Master Hypnotist - It's rare because it's not restricted?
Thoughts: I'd much rather these be "as long as so and so is in play", which would let you tier keywords - with the first having no keyword.. or perhaps flash?, the 2nd flying, and the rare hexproof. This would give your opponent a means to "steal back his stuff" - which I think would make these cards A LOT more fun to play against, and more challenging to play with.
Also, I think the 1/1, 2/2, and 3/3 is too linear. I don't understand why a master hypnotist is a physical hill giant.
Finally, I think it's clear that all of the cycle being hypnotists and stealing creatures is pretty weak. It would be a lot more clever, and show the range of blue, if they stole different types of things. The common could steal artifacts (and perhaps unequip them as he does if they're equipment???). The uncommon could steal a creature. The rare could steal anything. This would get rid of the clunky mana cost language and add some variety to the game, to limited, and to deck contruction.
Of the three cycles, I think Team Seagull's has the most chance of giving exciting and innovative gameplay with minor tweaks. Team Puffin's, however, is the most straightforward and printable of the trio. Finally, Team Sandpiper's are perhaps the most "fun". I can just imagine playing against the red common in limited and hoping that he doesn't get his black sorcery speed removal spell back. And I can imagine playing with it, playing the black removal spell on something less-than-killable, and hoping to get it back. Mind you, neither the uncommon or rare feel that fun or exciting - but with a little work...
(Probably NSFW) So you may have heard I'm trying to write a TV series...
Most Nominated for Random Categories, 2013
I think this would have been more apparent if each of them costed 6 and did something balanced at that cost.
Altered Art Cards! | Commissions currently Closed
@GM: I disagree. I've never seen a cycle this close. When two of the three cards in each submission are this close to interchangeable I think there's a problem.
I'm inclined to disagree. Learning a new game is difficult even if the rules are simple, and Magic is one of the more complex games; almost impossible to learn without somebody holding your hand throughout the process.
Each card on their own might be understandable, but put five somewhat wordy cards on the table and information overload/analysis paralysis can easily occur for new players.
Accessibility is very important for games, and it's best to err on the side of too simple when it comes to a game like MtG. After all, a player who gets hooked will have plenty of time to learn all of the complexity, whereas somebody who leaves early won't even be a regular customer.
I don't necessarily think a set needs bad cards (although it's good for business). Take Modern Masters for example; the vast majority of cards are playable.
Big Cal: I would prefer if you checked your submission after posting, and if it synced up with another person's, to change your submission. It makes it harder on the judges when two submissions are extremely similar, and obviously less fun as well.
There is a LOT of design space for every color, even while keeping things simple. For green,
generate mana
search for land/creature cards
reveal for land/creature cards
+X/+X self/other
regenerate self/other
trample/reach self/other
overrun effect
return cards to hand/top of library
tokens
these can be spells, ETB effects, leaves play effects, activated abilities, triggered abilities, enchantments, auras..
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%
Also, accusing someone of plagiarism is a serious offense. If you believe somebody is doing intentionally, you should talk to a mod, not drag their name through the mud out in the open.
BGStandard Green AggroGB
UWRGModern Saheeli CobraGRWU
UBRGLegacy StormGRBU
Wizards Certified Rules Advisor
For me, it's more of a "it would be nice if."
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 at you, Koopa, but at the situation - we have three mods in the PT plus the one running it, so it's not like there's any shortage of mods to contact if someone actually thinks there's any plagiarism going on.
Also, I'd like to remind people that if they haven't finished their critiques of Round 2 cards, they have just over twelve hours to do so.
Good luck, everybody!
(Probably NSFW) So you may have heard I'm trying to write a TV series...
Most Nominated for Random Categories, 2013
I'm not asking Big Cal to change his submission, he's free to do whatever he likes. However, the onus is on one of us to change our submissions for the sake of variety and to make the judging process easier. I already have a few others drawn up and I'll be posting one of them before the deadline.
Because it passes from saying "I think my submission is good and should make it into the set." to "I think my submission is better than yours specifically." It changes the contest from community friendly to cut-throat when we should be designing a quality set and having fun. I'm not saying it isn't still a contest at the end of the day, but duplicates lend themselves to apprehensiveness between the two designers. Every single person's design would change if they thought it was worse than another person's. The fact that it hasn't and is so similar to another is the same as sending a PM to the designer saying "Mine is better.". Everyone should have winning in mind, but there's no need to pit two designs and their designers against themselves this early.
I appreciate this critique but I disagree if only because I was limited to a cycle of uncommons. Bombastic effects like the ones you're talking about appear more at rare, which I would like to see. Unfortunately, however, cest la vie.
EDIT: As for the issue at hand...this is a sticky situation. The cards are somewhat similar, but tackling this out in the open is clearly less constructive than it is detrimental to the core spirit of fun that this contest is meant to inculcate. MDenham has already made it clear that there are multiple mods to take care of accusations of something as serious as plagerism. Let's end the public conversation here and get back to making cards.
Altered Art Cards! | Commissions currently Closed
The first number would be your score if this were actually the CCL, to two decimal places. The second number is the PT score after applying the curve but before rounding. The third number, in parentheses, is the PT score after rounding towards 10 (scores 10 and above are truncated, scores below 10 have the next higher whole number used instead).
Sir Karn 88.24/20 (20)
arbitraryarmor 71.43/16.19 (16)
Koopa 71.43/16.19 (16)
Svennihilator 64.71/14.67 (14)
Savia 64.29/14.57 (14)
void_nothing 64.29/14.57 (14)
aurorasparrow 57.14/12.95 (12)
Black_Megatog 57.14/12.95 (12)
dwaynedu 57.14/12.95 (12)
Link 50/11.33 (11)
yewlas 50/11.33 (11)
Ryoma Echizen 41.18/9.33 (10)
Gerrard's Mom 35.71/8.1 (9)
KoolKoal 35.71/8.1 (9)
Moss_Elemental 35.71/8.1 (9)
Raikou Rider 35.71/8.1 (9)
Big_Cal 29.41/6.67 (7)
Prophylaxis 14.29/3.24 (4)
Maokun 0/0 (0)
(Probably NSFW) So you may have heard I'm trying to write a TV series...
Most Nominated for Random Categories, 2013
E: Should I still do critiques and just rejoin next round?
The more you know, haha.
I would certainly hope so.
BGStandard Green AggroGB
UWRGModern Saheeli CobraGRWU
UBRGLegacy StormGRBU
Wizards Certified Rules Advisor
Green has only recently (beginning with Lorwyn) been given secondary status with vigilance. But green clearly has vigilance in its modern color pie. I took inspiration from Brushstrider and Wilt-Leaf Cavaliers. Joraga Bard and Beacon Behemoth show that green can grant vigilance to others. Favor of the Overbeing clearly shows that vigilance is a green ability by requiring a creature to be green to receive its benefit. Axebane Stag is a giant elk being huge. Elks are allowed to be giants just like spiders.
My goal was to explore design space that hasn't been as richly tapped and to give an identity to a creature type without one.
@Svennihlator: The name of your rare submission bears a striking resemblance to mine. It should show you how easy it is to make similar stuff unintentionally. There's not a lot of design space out there. That's a major reason why I tried to go in a different direction flavorfully than normal. (Elks instead of wolves or elementals or spiders.)
That being said, I think names and design space are different beasts. I wont get into that though and I'll say that you're right and had the circumstances been different I would have changed the name.
Sven: Nope, these two rounds are running exactly like the CCL (aside from the final "grade on a curve" bit, which is mostly to make keep things fairly consistent from round to round).
Just to let people know what the next round is going to be: it's Design-A-Booster! You'll have thirteen days to submit up to three boosters which are each assumed to have a foil card in them (so 9 commons, 3 uncommons, one rare or mythic, and one card of any rarity of your choice; you can skip posting the basic land, we know what those are :-P), and then we'll have a poll (or two) and the top 9 boosters will get included.
Well, hopefully they will, at least; if we have collisions at any slot, cards from lower-ranked entries will be included to fill holes so that we get 126 cards into the set from that round. (In the case of running out of any given color/rarity pair, preference will be given to the higher-scoring boosters.)
(Probably NSFW) So you may have heard I'm trying to write a TV series...
Most Nominated for Random Categories, 2013
I assume that means we will be designing 32 new cards?
BGStandard Green AggroGB
UWRGModern Saheeli CobraGRWU
UBRGLegacy StormGRBU
Wizards Certified Rules Advisor