Yeah, let that be a lesson to never give up. And Arcanix who was the clear leader now has to fight for the second place. Anything may happen... in the CCL!
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.
It just seems to me that its really hard to judge who's going to place where based on the scores as of now, seeing as how much they can change in a single round.
Also, as a sidenote: I think those who still need to submit top 3's should be reminded once again, seeing as since the current round started, I dont think anyone has submitted a late top 3.
Karmic noose posted in the old thread and I got 3 PMs. now time of grace is over and people will be scored/dropped accordingly.
But how is it determined if I get a point or not? What if A has me at 3rd place and says I got one bonus points, B gives me 1st and says I got no bonus, and C gives me 2nd and says I have 2/2 bonus points? Or has everyone always agreed on whether or not people met the requirements?
I go over each person who got into a top 3 and check whether the critics agreed on the amount of bonus points he or she should get then I go with what the majority said.
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.
Actually, this month I'm not offering points for top3s but only for critiques, because top3s are an integral part of the contest which keep the game running. As such, they shouldn't be rewarded per se but rather, the players who fail to submit them need to be penalized (which is what I'm doing.)
As for bonus points I'm calculating them this way: since they are "bonus" they are not included in the grading equation -otherwise not meeting the /optional/ requirements would mean that you are getting less points to parse through a bigger denominator. In other words, they wouldn't be neither bonus nor optional at all. Rather, they are added after the equation and they are calculated like a full regular point (like, say, submitting critiques or getting 3rd position in a critiques phase; i.e.: {1/number of possible points}*100.) In the first round that meant that for 11-person teams a "bonus point" was actually 3 points and for 8-person teams, 4 points.
Also, don't get discouraged if you seem too be too far behind. A good card can easily make in excess of 70 points per round, which could be enough to allow you to pass as second (usually the top player of each team is someone who had 2 good round and is almost unreachable.) I myself am competing in the finals of last month after having a really dismal first round.
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.
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.
Well yeah, that's pretty much it. You end with a creature that is different in a number of ways from the starting one. If I were to criticize those cards, I'd perhaps rate higher cards that produced a quite different result rather than, say, simply a change in p/t. But that's me. As far as the requirement goes, anything that changes your creature is valid.
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.
I do. Almost every single critique I've gotten this month is full of total retardation.
Use a better word next time.
Have you for a second considered that maybe it is not that 8 people are wrong (or "retarded") but rather that you are the one wrong? Casting your card at the beginning of your opponent's upkeep will easily net you two 5/5 or bigger creatures by the end of your turn. Three with a fetchland. More with Rampant grow/Harrow/etc. All for measly 5 mana. It may meet the requirements, but it's not fair at all.
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.
True that. However, that requirement may not change. hereby I dictate that if you made a saproling generator last round you may have your starting creature be a "fungus plant" which is exactly what they are. It will be the only exception in order to respect Magic's tradition of not having saproling creature cards.
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.
When I say mechanical tie I simply mean that there must be a clearly visible relation between the cards. Either by comboing together or by having similar abilities. I mean, hasn't the CCL always been like that.
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.
I'm sorry guys, I didn't expect this challenge to be so divisive or hard to meet. I just wanted you to represent in cards the spread of the first higher life-forms in a prehistoric plane. :/
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.
Yeah, rememeber Kamigawa: even things like sensations, the moon phase, bushes, etc had a related kami (spirit). White spirit tokens usually are just another variant on saprolings and carry little flavor context.
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.
"Would" is used for replacement effects which often also contain the word "instead" (or an instruction to cancel the effect such as "prevent",) as the effect that was going to take change is replaced with another but a certain value is is carried through the conversion.
Monkey's card is a bit confusing in its wording. It either doesn't need that "would" at all, or he was meaning to have the token receive the damage instead of the original creature on which damage was marked.
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.
No, paradigm, they aren't alike required points. They don't go into the grading equation, they are added at the end. Also, they are tailored to be difficult to get (especially both) for everyone. They are not custom made diabolical to thwart specifically you and only you. Also note that if you meet them but you don't top 3, you won't get any points.
Bonus points are supposed to be an additional challenge. Some will get them and some will not. The ones who get them will rightly have earned them. Also, what's wrong with the card you propose? It's powerful and neat. Sure, it's not going to change Magic forever... but then again, we're talking of a common/uncommon card. Utilitarian design is more than correct given the circumstances.
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.
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.
Well, meaning that is up to the critics to decide whether they allow it or not. Fir what I saw past round, though, critics were quite forgiving.
As for your round submission, I can see at least two ways you could solve your dilemma (and even get one of the bonus points.) I'm sure you'll find a way.
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.
Huh.. alright, so the total score DOES still matter, up until the top 8 are chosen. Until then, I still say some sort of averaged out score should be used. It'd help keep things fair for those wishing to get into the top 8.
Yeah, but the point Kiwi's trying to communicate is that scores are averaged inside the teams. Your scores pre-top8 will never be compared against people not from your team and all people in your team are under your same conditions.
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.
Karmic noose posted in the old thread and I got 3 PMs. now time of grace is over and people will be scored/dropped accordingly.
I go over each person who got into a top 3 and check whether the critics agreed on the amount of bonus points he or she should get then I go with what the majority said.
As for bonus points I'm calculating them this way: since they are "bonus" they are not included in the grading equation -otherwise not meeting the /optional/ requirements would mean that you are getting less points to parse through a bigger denominator. In other words, they wouldn't be neither bonus nor optional at all. Rather, they are added after the equation and they are calculated like a full regular point (like, say, submitting critiques or getting 3rd position in a critiques phase; i.e.: {1/number of possible points}*100.) In the first round that meant that for 11-person teams a "bonus point" was actually 3 points and for 8-person teams, 4 points.
Also, don't get discouraged if you seem too be too far behind. A good card can easily make in excess of 70 points per round, which could be enough to allow you to pass as second (usually the top player of each team is someone who had 2 good round and is almost unreachable.) I myself am competing in the finals of last month after having a really dismal first round.
Have you for a second considered that maybe it is not that 8 people are wrong (or "retarded") but rather that you are the one wrong? Casting your card at the beginning of your opponent's upkeep will easily net you two 5/5 or bigger creatures by the end of your turn. Three with a fetchland. More with Rampant grow/Harrow/etc. All for measly 5 mana. It may meet the requirements, but it's not fair at all.
Monkey's card is a bit confusing in its wording. It either doesn't need that "would" at all, or he was meaning to have the token receive the damage instead of the original creature on which damage was marked.
Bonus points are supposed to be an additional challenge. Some will get them and some will not. The ones who get them will rightly have earned them. Also, what's wrong with the card you propose? It's powerful and neat. Sure, it's not going to change Magic forever... but then again, we're talking of a common/uncommon card. Utilitarian design is more than correct given the circumstances.
As for your round submission, I can see at least two ways you could solve your dilemma (and even get one of the bonus points.) I'm sure you'll find a way.
Yeah, but the point Kiwi's trying to communicate is that scores are averaged inside the teams. Your scores pre-top8 will never be compared against people not from your team and all people in your team are under your same conditions.