@IcariiFA: these counters for the next round..need they be "essential" counters and not "nominal" counters? Id est, need they be similar to +1/+1, -1/-1, time, poison, and loyalty counters, or can they be something that depends more heavily on stated rules text on the card like Spore counters,divinity counters, and prey counters?
Another way to ask the question is: "Are we designing a new type of counter that has wide application, or are we designing a new type of counter that is more card-specific in its utility?"
Interpret as you will. All I asked was for a new type counter.
Quite a few people where kicked out/lost points for lack of top three and/or critiques.
Each round was scored independently, then averaged together.
There was one round of critiques where one critiqued the wrong individuals. While I gave them credit for doing crits/top 3 to avoid disqualification, I did not count whom they would of awarded points to.
@IcariiFA...Are noncreature spells that can turn into creatures considered ok for the round 1 challenge?
There are a few people that have posted a creature card for round 1, even though the challenge calls for a noncreature card. If you're one of those people, you might want to correct that.
Noncreature spells that turn into creatures are fine. Thinking of it as this: If I was searching my library for a creature card, would it be a legal target? If the answer is yes, your card falls the challenge. If the answer is no, you're fine.
However, there are a number of illegal entries, so I'll post a... friendly reminder in thread.
The tribe your card is supporting should never have received a support card before regardless of whether that support was a creature card or noncreature card.
From how I understand it, you are indeed incorrect. We use existing creature subtypes but we choose a type that doesn't already have existing support cards. (Or very few support cards within reason.)
This is correct. With my wording however, I did say never so if you use a subtype that has had support before and I was judging, I wouldnt give it a top 3 score even if it's use before was minamal. But that's just me. You as individual judges of each other are free to interpret where you draw the line.
Well, I finished my straight year run as a competitor in both the MCC and the CCL to add to my credentials. I'd like to host both the CCL and MCC if that's good by you.
Can I get a rules clarification please? Hemlock brought it to my attention that one of the rules regarding suspend in the rulebook states: "702.61b A card is “suspended” if it’s in the exile zone, has suspend, and has a time counter on it." Now, Hemlock interpreted that to mean that whenever a card with Suspend in its rules box is exiled and has time counters on it, the card automatically has Suspend. That would be interpreting Suspend as an ability, not merely an alternate cost of sorts as I had been interpreting it. Do others agree that Hemlock's 1st round card works as intended, or does it need the phrase, as seen on Delay "It gains Suspend"?
It doesn't.
The point of reference you are looking for is the Arc Blade cycle. Cards that already have suspend and re suspended themselves do not need "It gains suspend" because it already has it.
Agreed, except your definition of mistake sometimes feels like "didn't agree in lockstep with my opinion on the matter".
Sometimes? Maybe. This time? Saying my planeswalkers second ability didn't work with his other two was objectively false. That was not an opinion. Now, if he had started by saying "having to have two or more creatures die to stack your library is too much effort" or something to that effect, then sure, that would of been a reasonable evaluation of the card since we are all just mentally playtesting here. But that wasn't what was said in the initial critique.
Also agreed, but your tone is so often unfriendly that it can be hard to hear the good advice through the bad attitude. Which may just be to our detriment, but I've always enjoyed the adage "you catch more flies with honey than vinegar".
Yup. As often noted on these forums I'm harsh. I'm the early American Idol season's Simon Cowell. I'm the Snape to the potions class. While I don't disagree that being nicer would probably make people more receptive, it doesn't make my points wrong either.
*sigh* I know it is dude, but that wasn't the point and I think you know that. You are an excellent designer, but everyone has room to improve, and the way you come across sometimes seems that you think you're above improvement.
I don't think the sarcasm was needed.
If anything I think people misinterpret my harshness. It's not because I think I'm above improvement. It's because I want more people to improve, and I'm tired of the kiddy gloves.
Before this year my participation in these contest was more sporadic, and while I won occasionally I did't feel people held my opinion as highly as others just because I participated less. This year I wanted to make a point: If I consistently entered and put in some level of effort into these contest, I could consistently win. That I knew what I'm talking about. That's not to say I think everything I design is perfect or even good, but now that I've gotten this far into the year, that I feel I've proven that I'm one of the front runners here, my opinion are still easily dismissed even when I'm not expressing an opinion but objective fact. Particularly by newer folks. It's frustrating.
So when I point out that there was an error in a critique and it's ignored? That bothers me. While I have plenty to learn and there are certainly other points of view I respect hearing and touch on things I miss, maybe the lesson here is this; while I certainly could learn to be nicer, there is a pretty good chance I know what I'm talking about and it shouldn't be so casually dismissed. It's not like I call out every post that doesn't list my card in their top 3. Just ones that I see that say something that shows they objectively miss-evaluated that card in some way.
Point being your initial critique was incorrect, and your current evaluation in rebuttal is overly narrow.
Daaamn dude, you get awfully up in arms about what’s supposed to be a fun creative exercise. It’s not like people you deeply care about are being held hostage and will only be set free if you win enough of these.
...Unless they are, in which case a) Do you have an address so I can call in a SWAT team? b) You might improve your win rate, and thus get them set free sooner, if you were more receptive to the feedback of others.
I don't like it when people can't admit they made a mistake. Hence I was harsh. It's important to recognize relevant critique and non relevant critique. And while parts of Sheoldred's subsequent comments has good points, the part I initially highlighted was just objectively incorrect. It's important to point that out so he can improve too.
Also, My win rate is quite fine. More than fine, really.
Yes, then you need to run sac outlets in your presumably mill/counters based deck, sac two non-token creatures on your turn, be okay with having one of them bounced to your hand and effectively losing your draw to set up nissa, voice of zendikar's -2. I am not trying to be sarcastic, and the card has some interesting ideas, especially with flavor, but the abilities seem to be pulling in four opposing directions at once. Setting up the Ult I can kind of see, however the only thing you really get out of that is repeating ETBs, at the cost of reducing your graveyard size (for the ult) and board presence (for the first).
Consider decks that go: First turn play a creature. Second turn play a creature. Third turn play Portost. Fourth turn Wrath of God, Barter in Blood, etc...
Point being your initial critique was incorrect, and your current evaluation in rebuttal is overly narrow.
The second ability suffers from the fact that it looks like it want to synergize with the first or ultimate, but in actuality, unless you can do it at instant speed, you will draw the creature before you mill it. Aside from that failed synergy, it does not otherwise connect to the flavor or mechanics of the card. The ult is kind of interesting, however the fact that it pulls from the library instead of the graveyard puts it at odds with what the card is about. Portost seems like he wants you to take time crafting your GY, only to use your deck instead where it counts.
The 2nd ability works if more than one of your creatures dies, as you can stack your deck with multiple for his first ability and ultimate.
Interpret as you will. All I asked was for a new type counter.
kjsharp
void_nothing
willows
Flatline
Hemlock
Sheoldred
TheDrB
Antiantiserum
Scoring Notes:
However, there are a number of illegal entries, so I'll post a... friendly reminder in thread.
This is correct. With my wording however, I did say never so if you use a subtype that has had support before and I was judging, I wouldnt give it a top 3 score even if it's use before was minamal. But that's just me. You as individual judges of each other are free to interpret where you draw the line.
The point of reference you are looking for is the Arc Blade cycle. Cards that already have suspend and re suspended themselves do not need "It gains suspend" because it already has it.
You want to call it a co win, fine. But that's not what happened.
Yup. As often noted on these forums I'm harsh. I'm the early American Idol season's Simon Cowell. I'm the Snape to the potions class. While I don't disagree that being nicer would probably make people more receptive, it doesn't make my points wrong either.
I don't think the sarcasm was needed.
If anything I think people misinterpret my harshness. It's not because I think I'm above improvement. It's because I want more people to improve, and I'm tired of the kiddy gloves.
Before this year my participation in these contest was more sporadic, and while I won occasionally I did't feel people held my opinion as highly as others just because I participated less. This year I wanted to make a point: If I consistently entered and put in some level of effort into these contest, I could consistently win. That I knew what I'm talking about. That's not to say I think everything I design is perfect or even good, but now that I've gotten this far into the year, that I feel I've proven that I'm one of the front runners here, my opinion are still easily dismissed even when I'm not expressing an opinion but objective fact. Particularly by newer folks. It's frustrating.
So when I point out that there was an error in a critique and it's ignored? That bothers me. While I have plenty to learn and there are certainly other points of view I respect hearing and touch on things I miss, maybe the lesson here is this; while I certainly could learn to be nicer, there is a pretty good chance I know what I'm talking about and it shouldn't be so casually dismissed. It's not like I call out every post that doesn't list my card in their top 3. Just ones that I see that say something that shows they objectively miss-evaluated that card in some way.
Also, My win rate is quite fine. More than fine, really.
Consider decks that go: First turn play a creature. Second turn play a creature. Third turn play Portost. Fourth turn Wrath of God, Barter in Blood, etc...
Point being your initial critique was incorrect, and your current evaluation in rebuttal is overly narrow.
The 2nd ability works if more than one of your creatures dies, as you can stack your deck with multiple for his first ability and ultimate.