It's an abbreviation for something else that doesn't make any sense either, which is Sarnathed.
Apparently long ago in a galaxy far far away, a user named Sarnath would post replies faster than most other people, so he would answer the same question while they were writing the response. The result: 2-3 people would answer the same question in a row, because they were writing their answers at the same time. Sarnath was just faster. Hence the term "Sarnath'd" or even just "'nath'd", which indicates that someone else answered while you were writing your post.
It happens to me a lot, because I often write long, detailed answers, and edit my posts repeatedly before posting them.
I think this is the contentious part of qqpq's point. I am staying firmly neutral in this matter on the whole, but I appreciate how hard Arz has worked this past month, so being told he 'did it wrong' was bound to cause offence. I don't think any of the players or judges were under the impression that 'search' constituted a keyword ability (am I wrong, qqpq?).
Search is a "keyword action".
BlackBull was under the impression the keyword actions were allowed. I was of the opinion that they were not. Then, this:
Second: BlackBull, your card didn't have a keyword action, either. At least not according to the closest thing my fellow judges and I have to an authoritative source.
I pointed out that Wikipedia is not an authoritative source, but the Comp Rules are, and Kenaron pointed out the MTGS wiki.
It's possible that no actual error in score was made, if keyword actions were not permitted for the bonus. However, Arz didn't answer that question either way, instead stating (incorrectly) that BlackBull's card did not contain a keyword action.
Did I just start something? I was just pointing out the Wiki, that was supposed to be all. Its on the bar at the top, to the right of Forums by two items. It was not my intention to cause a fight that causes judges to drop out.
Actually, I referenced the Comp Rules before you mentioned the MTGS wiki.
The Comp Rules are the only authoritative source. Other sources may be useful references, but if it comes down to a dispute, the Comp Rules should be final judge.
I was too be brief in my response to Arzangremmel.
Here's a more full response:
If you're going to run a contest with 60+ participants and judges, there are a lot of people relying on you.
Refusing to admit an error and/or correct a mistake is immature and inappropriate. Telling your fellow judges they are being smug when they point out a better resource than you were using is immature and inappropriate. Saying you are all alone when, in fact, several other judges worked hard to make sure the rounds were completed, was immature and inappropriate.
No one was attacking you or criticizing you for not being aware of a better resource.
The fact that you saw it as an attack and attacked back has removed the faith I had in you as an organizer, and therefore I will not be participating this month.
I am prohibited by the forum rules in various ways from offering an appropriate rejoinder, so I'm afraid anything I have to say in response to that is pretty much pointless.
I didn't know about the wiki here.
I don't regret the decisions I made.
And I'm not retroactively assigning anything.
I thought that after the middle of the month or so that I was alone here, that I had no help. Well now I see that conjecture was all wrong.
Now I know it for a fact.
Enjoy September.
If that's how you feel, then indeed, enjoy September.
Second: BlackBull, your card didn't have a keyword action, either. At least not according to the closest thing my fellow judges and I have to an authoritative source.
Actually, the only truly authoritative source, the Comprehensive Rules, lists "search" as a keyword action (see section 701). If keyword actions were permissible, then BlackBull deserves an extra point from each judge.
The wikipedia article is out of date, and was never complete even when it was up to date.
I'll try to get it done, of course, but I feel inclined to point out that having three days to do 7-8 judgings is a seriously tight schedule. What's the problem with letting the final round spill over?
Big congrats to Ikeda!
If you only do 7-8 judgings, you'll be leaving a few out of August's final round.
I did say earlier, these final rounds with 10 entrants are a bit much.
I expect round 1 to be rough, due to sheer volume, but we could trim a few extra people out during rounds 2 & 3 and only have 6-7 people in the finals. I feel like that would result in more judges finishing their judgings on time (or at all).
When I say, as an MCC Judge, "I'm not a fan of this" or "I don't like it when" or similar things like that, I'm not scoring you based upon my personal feelings. I'm saying that that design philosophy or decision is not a good one for your card, or possibly for the game as a whole.
When I use phrases like that, I'm trying to soften the blow, instead of saying "This was a stupid thing to do" or "this card sucks" or something like that. I write my judgings to try to make people better card designers, and pissing people off doesn't usually help with that, so I try to be nice while I'm pointing out where you went wrong. OTOH, I try not to gloss things over, because if I don't point out an error you made, then you may think it was a good decision & proceed to make more cards with the same error. If I say "No one would ever play this card", I mean that I really think that, and I'm trying to point out that you didn't spend enough time considering your audiences when designing your card.
EDIT: August Final Round Judgings are up. PM or post here if you have comments/questions/complaints. Sorry for the brevity, it was a rough week for me.
Maybe Wizards just keeps printing it because they think we will forget about Counterspell and how much better it is than Cancel. They should have reprinted Prohibit if they wanted a counter to put in the set for Limited.
This.
Prohibit would have been perfect for this set. I think it fits flavor quite nicely as well. Alternatively, something like this:
Some Counter Spell UU
Instant
Kicker 1U
Counter target spell with CMC 3 or less.
If this was kicked, counter target spell with CMC 4 or greater instead.
I know the name is correct, we just need to figure out the correct templating for the card. :/
Why would the French and English templating be different? That's rather odd.
Quest of the Gravelord
Enchantment (U)
Whenever a creature is put into the graveyard from the battlefield, put a quest counter on ~this~.
Remove three quest counters from ~this~ and sacrifice it: Put a black 5/5 Zombie Giant creature token onto the battlefield.
I can't think of how to word that without at least 3 instances of the name, and the French version very clearly uses 3 instances. I can see it have four instances instead of 3, but I can't see less than 3.
Sorry if I missed this earlier in this monster of a thread, but has anyone pointed out that the word Dragon appearing exactly once makes it very unlikely to actually be a Dragon creature, as most of those have dragon in both the name and the type line?
It's possible Tomb Lord's Quest is actually Quest of the Tomb Lord Gravelord.
Moss, is it just me, or doesn't capitalizing the S in Seigneur normally mean Lord, as in "We pray to the Lord"?
I don't actually know French, I'm just referencing a translation site.
I believe the most literal translation would be "Quest for the Lord of Tombs" or "Search for the Lord of Tombs". But like I said, I don't actually know French.
It's an abbreviation for something else that doesn't make any sense either, which is Sarnathed.
Apparently long ago in a galaxy far far away, a user named Sarnath would post replies faster than most other people, so he would answer the same question while they were writing the response. The result: 2-3 people would answer the same question in a row, because they were writing their answers at the same time. Sarnath was just faster. Hence the term "Sarnath'd" or even just "'nath'd", which indicates that someone else answered while you were writing your post.
It happens to me a lot, because I often write long, detailed answers, and edit my posts repeatedly before posting them.
Search is a "keyword action".
BlackBull was under the impression the keyword actions were allowed. I was of the opinion that they were not. Then, this:
I pointed out that Wikipedia is not an authoritative source, but the Comp Rules are, and Kenaron pointed out the MTGS wiki.
It's possible that no actual error in score was made, if keyword actions were not permitted for the bonus. However, Arz didn't answer that question either way, instead stating (incorrectly) that BlackBull's card did not contain a keyword action.
(EDIT: Slighly 'nath'd by Blackbull)
Actually, I referenced the Comp Rules before you mentioned the MTGS wiki.
The Comp Rules are the only authoritative source. Other sources may be useful references, but if it comes down to a dispute, the Comp Rules should be final judge.
I was too be brief in my response to Arzangremmel.
Here's a more full response:
If you're going to run a contest with 60+ participants and judges, there are a lot of people relying on you.
Refusing to admit an error and/or correct a mistake is immature and inappropriate. Telling your fellow judges they are being smug when they point out a better resource than you were using is immature and inappropriate. Saying you are all alone when, in fact, several other judges worked hard to make sure the rounds were completed, was immature and inappropriate.
No one was attacking you or criticizing you for not being aware of a better resource.
The fact that you saw it as an attack and attacked back has removed the faith I had in you as an organizer, and therefore I will not be participating this month.
If that's how you feel, then indeed, enjoy September.
I will not be judging.
Actually, the only truly authoritative source, the Comprehensive Rules, lists "search" as a keyword action (see section 701). If keyword actions were permissible, then BlackBull deserves an extra point from each judge.
The wikipedia article is out of date, and was never complete even when it was up to date.
I believe you mistook a September round 1 clarification for an August Final Round clarification.
The August Final Round specifically states "Keyword ability". A keyword action is NOT a keyword ability.
Also, even if every single judge gave you 1 more point, you still wouldn't be the winner.
Yipes. I hadn't even noticed that Sept Round 1 had closed.
If you only do 7-8 judgings, you'll be leaving a few out of August's final round.
I did say earlier, these final rounds with 10 entrants are a bit much.
I expect round 1 to be rough, due to sheer volume, but we could trim a few extra people out during rounds 2 & 3 and only have 6-7 people in the finals. I feel like that would result in more judges finishing their judgings on time (or at all).
When I say, as an MCC Judge, "I'm not a fan of this" or "I don't like it when" or similar things like that, I'm not scoring you based upon my personal feelings. I'm saying that that design philosophy or decision is not a good one for your card, or possibly for the game as a whole.
When I use phrases like that, I'm trying to soften the blow, instead of saying "This was a stupid thing to do" or "this card sucks" or something like that. I write my judgings to try to make people better card designers, and pissing people off doesn't usually help with that, so I try to be nice while I'm pointing out where you went wrong. OTOH, I try not to gloss things over, because if I don't point out an error you made, then you may think it was a good decision & proceed to make more cards with the same error. If I say "No one would ever play this card", I mean that I really think that, and I'm trying to point out that you didn't spend enough time considering your audiences when designing your card.
EDIT: August Final Round Judgings are up. PM or post here if you have comments/questions/complaints. Sorry for the brevity, it was a rough week for me.
The organizer may tally the totals without me if enough other judges are finished.
This.
Prohibit would have been perfect for this set. I think it fits flavor quite nicely as well. Alternatively, something like this:
Some Counter Spell UU
Instant
Kicker 1U
Counter target spell with CMC 3 or less.
If this was kicked, counter target spell with CMC 4 or greater instead.
Why would the French and English templating be different? That's rather odd.
Quest of the Gravelord
Enchantment (U)
Whenever a creature is put into the graveyard from the battlefield, put a quest counter on ~this~.
Remove three quest counters from ~this~ and sacrifice it: Put a black 5/5 Zombie Giant creature token onto the battlefield.
I can't think of how to word that without at least 3 instances of the name, and the French version very clearly uses 3 instances. I can see it have four instances instead of 3, but I can't see less than 3.
Yeah, I missed that Hellkite = 2, so you've pegged it.
Although I'm kind of expecting it to just be firebreathing...
Moss, is it just me, or doesn't capitalizing the S in Seigneur normally mean Lord, as in "We pray to the Lord"?
I don't actually know French, I'm just referencing a translation site.
I believe the most literal translation would be "Quest for the Lord of Tombs" or "Search for the Lord of Tombs". But like I said, I don't actually know French.