Twilight TravelerBW
Creature R
Flying, lifelink Devolution - As long as your life total is even, Twilight Traveler is a 1/1 Spirit. Evolution - As long as your life total is odd, Twilight Traveler is a 3/3 Bird Nomad.
*/*
Lifelink and flying are evergreen keyworded abilities. I said the ability words you used were nonsensical. Ability words - like domain and chroma - have no direct rules text. "Devolution" and "evolution" are ability words, and make no sense being tied to whether your life total is odd or even. "Odd/Even" changes are chaos factors found on Red cards, not White/Black ones. You would have been better off modeling the card after Serra Ascendant, having it change after hitting a certain life total.
Your card has no Creature subtype on the Card Type line. There is no creature card, after errata, that does not have some subtype on that type line. If this was in your graveyard, you could not use Soulshift to put it into your hand. This means it is NOT a Spirit, and does not match your Sorcery.
Is that substantial enough?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
May your games be chaotic and your decks be Rogue.
The thing I'm finding interesting in some of the critiques I've been reading is a lack of mention regarding the "mechanical tie-in" between the R1 Land and the R2 Sorcery/Instant. I'm just wondering how many of the other players are checking this before they rate the cards.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
May your games be chaotic and your decks be Rogue.
The means a Top 3 was not submitted by that player. Each of the scores were broken down by number of Top 3s for that team (7 or 8), plus the two extra points for Top 3 and/or Crits. That's why the divisor is either 23 (7*3 + 2)or 26 (8*3 + 2). Had I made it based on the number of possible judges, it would have been a lot more unfair. People shouldn't be penalized because someone from a Team decides not to submit a Top 3/Crits.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
May your games be chaotic and your decks be Rogue.
Non humanoid animals domesticated or not are by definition non-sapient. Why is people getting snagged on this simple requirement? Allow me to give you a non-comprehensive list, pulled from the back of my mind as I type with hardly no thought whatsoever of creature types that can be used:
Cat
Rat
Plant
Elemental
Spirit
Bat
Insect
Squirrel
Bird
Hound
Wolf
Fox
Rhino
Fungus
Saproling
Beast
Turtle
Crab
Wurm
Snake
Frog
Lizard
Fish
I'm sure with a bit of thought and research you can easily double this already long list, not to mention that you can use whatever animal you wish that hasn't been made into a card if it comes to that.
First, the chain of definitions, as provided by Merriam Webster:
Sapient: n. - possessing great sagacity
Sagacity: n. - quality of being sagacious
Sagacious: adj. - of keen and farsighted penetration or judgment: discerning
Discerning: adj. - showing insight and understanding: discriminatiing
All real world animals are sapient - they are aware enough to recognize their surroundings and react to them. Few, if any, are self-aware, which is an entirely different concept from being sapient. In MtG, Elementals have been bipedal humanoids in more than a few sets. Fungus have been sentient since Fallen Empires. Wurms may be massive, but they're still smart enough to know when something is attacking them.
The following creature subtypes have only ever appeared in rules text, and have little to no definition as to their level of intelligence/awareness:
Camarid; Caribou; Citizen; Coward; Deserter; Germ; Graveborn; Orb; Pentavite; Pincher; Prism; Reflection; Sand; Saproling; Serf; Spawn; Splinter; Survivor; Tetravite; and Triskelavite.
On a seperate matter, the July CCL final will be up late tonight or tomorrow morning.
Well, kinda yeah. But your whole team was kind of at fault, along with Maokun a bit.
It seemed people just got confused as to what the actual requirements were. A lot of people seemed to miss the part in the Round 1 thread where it said (just above the mandatory requirements) "Design a land, with one or more abilities that reflect or adapt the ones in the plane you chose". Not just you, but your team as a whole seemed to design lands that weren't really reflecting or adapting the abilities on Otaria so much as designing them to be synergistic with it, as if the plane card was in play, and this legendary land would accompany it.
I wasn't confused (though I did miss the genesis part). I was going by Maokun's clarification from earlier in this thread. The important part is bolded below.
I have skimmed over the submissions and I think I'll stress that there must be a mechanical tie between your land and your chosen plane. Also, let be this my chance to say that when I say "plane" I mean "plane card" without regards to the flavor of that plane, which you are free to incorporate as long as your cards remain mechanically tied.
My first submission was an homage to Balthor. It was a Mountain that added :symr::symr: for Dwarf and Warrior Barbarian (was going to fix it) spells and abilities. But after the above post from Maokun, I realized it didn't fit his criteria.
Mundus, if you're reviews are based on Otaria as a whole, rather than the Plane card "Otaria," then you might want to reconsider your scores. And this is coming from the guy you gave 1st place to.
You and NotoriousLynx have the same 2 mana ability. Your templating is better and you can still produce mana with this even if no cards in your graveyard are castable.
NotoriousLynx posted first so it kinda seems like you're copying. Your version's more printable but less original.
I'm really hoping you didn't accuse me of cheating there. I generally don't look at any of the other submissions until it's time to critique. You also need to check timestamps on edits before you can say which came first. My last edit for that post: 14:47 on 3 Aug. NotoriousLynx's last edit: 03:04 on 5 Aug. I had finalized my entry thirty-six hours before he did. I know he didn't copy mine; the difference in templating alone tells you that much. And I didn't copy his.
I will admit I have 'stolen' a card design from a contest. brasil_dude101 had put up an early card design for a card called "Postpone," which he later decided not to submit. I told him I was going to 'steal' it from him, since he 'stole' it from Venser, Shaper Savant. He said that was fine, so long as I never used it in a competition against him, which I had no issue with.
@Maokun: Welcome to the trickiest part of running a CCL: getting your idea across. When you put the challenge out there, you have an idea of what kinds of cards you expect to see. The results don't always match up. Look at your original instructions.
Design a land, with one or more abilities that reflect or adapt the ones in the plane you chose.
Mandatory requirements:
1. It must be legendary
2. it must add mana of one or more colors (that make sense to the abilities of the plane.)
Optional Requirements (meeting each of these will grant you a bonus point at the end of the round if you are at least in a top 3) :
1. It must NOT enter the battlefield tapped
2. It must add more than one mana to your mana pool
You said it had to match the Plane, not the Planechase card. You never mention a mechanical link. I'm not trying to be negative here; just pointing out a few cautions. If you're looking to push design in a specific direction, you have to clarify your ideas a little more. I had to do it more than a few times last month, and I tried to be as specific as possible.
Just like the game itself, everyone approaches it from a different angle. You have to take the people that like perpendicular angles into consideration.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
May your games be chaotic and your decks be Rogue.
@Maokun: By saying that certain board/game states don't count, you're nullifying any reason to have several teams work mechanically with their Planechase cards for the bonus.
Otaria enables flashback, or grants extra turns. So, if I can't "rely" on being able to flashback a sorcery or instant, working mechanically with my "Plane" wouldn't be in contention for bonus points?
Agyrem and Murasa require creatures to trigger. According to your criteria, that relies on certain a game/board state, and so wouldn't be considered.
Just a little confused as to the conflicting information here. Working mechanically with the Planechase card is required, but employing the mechanics for a reason to produce more than one mana goes against the bonus?
Is a signup thread going to be started for August? With Asrama still MIA on the thread (hasn't posted anywhere on MtGS since April), I'm wondering if Zzzapper - or someone else - is ready to go.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
May your games be chaotic and your decks be Rogue.
It occurred to me that I advocated changing the Top 8 and Top 4 from paired eliminations to scoring everyone else in the Top 3 system, but that only happened when I took over from Doom Lich in January, and then it was forgotten. What did people think of that change? To clarify, in Round 4 (Top 8), each player would critique the other 7 cards, and choose their Top 3, to be scored as in normal rounds. The top 4 scoring cards would advance, using only the scores from that round.
Well, just to let everyone know, I'll be using this for Top 8 and Top 4 scoring (prior scores will be zeroed out for both rounds), so hopefully we can get a more accurate Top 4 and organizers can possibly avoid getting involved in tiebreakers for Final 2. The month is running long, even taking the four day delay into account. I think the process needs some refinement, but I would like to see the CCL continue to include the Round 0 submissions in scoring.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
May your games be chaotic and your decks be Rogue.
@GMom: The attrition rate has actually been lower than I expected, especially after posting Round 2's challenge. I know how much people tend to loathe seeing the words "Common" or "Aura" in a challenge, let alone together. Even at this point, of the 37 original entrants, we have more than 20 still active, and no team has less than 4 active at the moment. So, to me, that's a success.
@Paradigm Eighty: Sorry you don't care for the story. While I tend to prefer more elaborate descriptions, the time wasn't really there to go into greater detail. As far as the narrative itself, it's rather difficult finding unused CCL concepts, and rehashing is a little tricky. I might have done so; I'm not certain. At the conclusion of Round 3, I will be posting another thread for Round 3 Crits that will be open for 72 hours. After the scores are in and calculated, then I will post the thread for Top 8.
So, as we start the last Design round before Top 8, are you enjoying the challenges? And how do you feel about the revised critique schedule I'm using?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
May your games be chaotic and your decks be Rogue.
And we've never gotten back to that discussion. The problem is that, to some people, the cards are fine and there are no issues about power levels. To others, they see inherent problems, but are restricted from doing anything about it. I had considered banning some people from moving onto Round 1 for failing to read the directions (for the record, Paradigm Eighty was not one of them), but the Rules actually don't allow for that. It's part of the reason I included judging of Round 0 submissions for this CCL.
Whether this scoring gets used again or not, I have no idea. To me, it balances things a little more. It's not as comprehensive as the MCC (which can still have questionable entries/critiques), but the CCL isn't meant to be, either.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
May your games be chaotic and your decks be Rogue.
Sign-up thread is up here. I told GMom a few days ago that I'd take care of July if Asrama didn't make an appearance by tonight. I know I said I couldn't do July earlier, but the job I was supposed to start changed their minds.
Lifelink and flying are evergreen keyworded abilities. I said the ability words you used were nonsensical. Ability words - like domain and chroma - have no direct rules text. "Devolution" and "evolution" are ability words, and make no sense being tied to whether your life total is odd or even. "Odd/Even" changes are chaos factors found on Red cards, not White/Black ones. You would have been better off modeling the card after Serra Ascendant, having it change after hitting a certain life total.
Your card has no Creature subtype on the Card Type line. There is no creature card, after errata, that does not have some subtype on that type line. If this was in your graveyard, you could not use Soulshift to put it into your hand. This means it is NOT a Spirit, and does not match your Sorcery.
Is that substantial enough?
Scoring, Round 0
Team Id /23
TwilightSpark: 43 (10/23)
Timothy, Mimeslayer: 13 (3/23)
Eremity: 30 (7/23)
DeusofCalamity: 9 (2/23)
shadowfuryix: 22 (5/23)
Krey: 48 (11/23)
Jimmy Groove: 22 (5/23)
Summon_Legend: 48 (11/23)
xX-TacOcat-Xx: 9 (2/23)
Team Ego /26
NotoriousLynx: 8 (2/26)
Koopa: 27 (7/26)
Twilight Kiwi: 35 (9/26)
Prospero314: 54 (14/26)
Dofustal: 27 (7/26)
Monkey Playing MTG: 8 (2/26)
Achren: 12 (3/26)
Phyrexian Editor: 35 (9/26)
The_Reign: 0
Benjammn: 38 (10/26)
Team Super-ego /26
destinytrigger: 0
brasil_dude101: 50 (13/26)
CodGod: 46 (12/26)
ParaSiempre: 8 (2/26)
Marr965: 12 (3/26)
Oculus: 15 (4/26)
Maokun: 35 (9/26)
schtingah: 19 (5/26)
Pocketwatch: 58 (15/26)
Team Psyche /26
Gerrard's Mom: 50 (13/26)
Viperion: 15 (4/26)
void_nothing: 27 (7/26)
Jau: 27 (7/26)
Ikeda: 54 (14/26)
Paradigm Eighty: 23 (6/26)
MichMash: 8 (2/26)
Rimeshade: 27 (7/26)
MagicBrains: 12 (3/26)
The means a Top 3 was not submitted by that player. Each of the scores were broken down by number of Top 3s for that team (7 or 8), plus the two extra points for Top 3 and/or Crits. That's why the divisor is either 23 (7*3 + 2)or 26 (8*3 + 2). Had I made it based on the number of possible judges, it would have been a lot more unfair. People shouldn't be penalized because someone from a Team decides not to submit a Top 3/Crits.
First, the chain of definitions, as provided by Merriam Webster:
Sapient: n. - possessing great sagacity
Sagacity: n. - quality of being sagacious
Sagacious: adj. - of keen and farsighted penetration or judgment: discerning
Discerning: adj. - showing insight and understanding: discriminatiing
All real world animals are sapient - they are aware enough to recognize their surroundings and react to them. Few, if any, are self-aware, which is an entirely different concept from being sapient. In MtG, Elementals have been bipedal humanoids in more than a few sets. Fungus have been sentient since Fallen Empires. Wurms may be massive, but they're still smart enough to know when something is attacking them.
The following creature subtypes have only ever appeared in rules text, and have little to no definition as to their level of intelligence/awareness:
Camarid; Caribou; Citizen; Coward; Deserter; Germ; Graveborn; Orb; Pentavite; Pincher; Prism; Reflection; Sand; Saproling; Serf; Spawn; Splinter; Survivor; Tetravite; and Triskelavite.
On a seperate matter, the July CCL final will be up late tonight or tomorrow morning.
I wasn't confused (though I did miss the genesis part). I was going by Maokun's clarification from earlier in this thread. The important part is bolded below.
My first submission was an homage to Balthor. It was a Mountain that added :symr::symr: for Dwarf and
WarriorBarbarian (was going to fix it) spells and abilities. But after the above post from Maokun, I realized it didn't fit his criteria.Mundus, if you're reviews are based on Otaria as a whole, rather than the Plane card "Otaria," then you might want to reconsider your scores. And this is coming from the guy you gave 1st place to.
I'm really hoping you didn't accuse me of cheating there. I generally don't look at any of the other submissions until it's time to critique. You also need to check timestamps on edits before you can say which came first. My last edit for that post: 14:47 on 3 Aug. NotoriousLynx's last edit: 03:04 on 5 Aug. I had finalized my entry thirty-six hours before he did. I know he didn't copy mine; the difference in templating alone tells you that much. And I didn't copy his.
I will admit I have 'stolen' a card design from a contest. brasil_dude101 had put up an early card design for a card called "Postpone," which he later decided not to submit. I told him I was going to 'steal' it from him, since he 'stole' it from Venser, Shaper Savant. He said that was fine, so long as I never used it in a competition against him, which I had no issue with.
You said it had to match the Plane, not the Planechase card. You never mention a mechanical link. I'm not trying to be negative here; just pointing out a few cautions. If you're looking to push design in a specific direction, you have to clarify your ideas a little more. I had to do it more than a few times last month, and I tried to be as specific as possible.
Just like the game itself, everyone approaches it from a different angle. You have to take the people that like perpendicular angles into consideration.
Otaria enables flashback, or grants extra turns. So, if I can't "rely" on being able to flashback a sorcery or instant, working mechanically with my "Plane" wouldn't be in contention for bonus points?
Agyrem and Murasa require creatures to trigger. According to your criteria, that relies on certain a game/board state, and so wouldn't be considered.
Just a little confused as to the conflicting information here. Working mechanically with the Planechase card is required, but employing the mechanics for a reason to produce more than one mana goes against the bonus?
Well, just to let everyone know, I'll be using this for Top 8 and Top 4 scoring (prior scores will be zeroed out for both rounds), so hopefully we can get a more accurate Top 4 and organizers can possibly avoid getting involved in tiebreakers for Final 2. The month is running long, even taking the four day delay into account. I think the process needs some refinement, but I would like to see the CCL continue to include the Round 0 submissions in scoring.
@Paradigm Eighty: Sorry you don't care for the story. While I tend to prefer more elaborate descriptions, the time wasn't really there to go into greater detail. As far as the narrative itself, it's rather difficult finding unused CCL concepts, and rehashing is a little tricky. I might have done so; I'm not certain. At the conclusion of Round 3, I will be posting another thread for Round 3 Crits that will be open for 72 hours. After the scores are in and calculated, then I will post the thread for Top 8.
Whether this scoring gets used again or not, I have no idea. To me, it balances things a little more. It's not as comprehensive as the MCC (which can still have questionable entries/critiques), but the CCL isn't meant to be, either.
Yay for more free time.