Me neither. I don't want this all to be taken too seriously. But I also don't like it not being taken seriously at all. When it's not being taken seriously at all, there's no fun in it, and there's nothing to gain to become better at design. At that point, I might as well ask a magic eight ball if my card is any good.
Are you about done pretending you made a perfect card, now?
I am not pretending I made a perfect card. I thought I made it clear that I'm not under the assumption that I'm so leet pro and if only people weren't stupid, they'd see it. I pointed out that my issue with the critiques is rampant through all contests and games, and against all cards - not just mine. I sure do love the attitude of "oh, well, you're just upset because you think you're perfect." It's more of that shoddy critic style that's all over these boards.
Quote from Maokun »
But before you say I'm nitpicking your rant, let me explain: I selected it because time after time when you rant here or in other contests, small things like this crop up, revealing that you don't know as much about design as you think. That normally wouldn't be a problem as we all start generally ignorant or unaware of all the nuances of card design, which we slowly learn as we keep trying, seeing what others have done and reading what the creators have to say on the matter. However, your problem is that you believe that you know better. So whenever a disagreement in opinions crop up, you automatically believe this is because the other person is stupid and doesn't know what he's talking about, because you are pretty sure of knowing what you are talking about. But you don't.
Fair enough, I didn't know this about design. I would love to see where else I've had a complaint with a critique that wasn't valid. Like when people said "when land enters the battlefield" doesn't tie mechanically to "when land enters the battlefield" after you publicly suggested using that very mechanic to tie my land to th following round's card? What about the other critiques I cited above, like saying my card could be broken due to an outside infinite mana combo? Or that the final casting cost is too high, yet it's nothing compared to level up cards or that Kithkin guy? Or the one about how "your card isn't blue, but let me reference two other blue cards that has similar traits?" Or Sojourn's randomly invented templating rules? Or how "hey, this is mythic." mashes with "this is uncommon." Or any of the rest of it? Why couldn't Sojourn have said "No block has both +1/+1 counters AND -1/-1 counters?" instead of just saying "it's a bad idea." with kind of an assy "oy vey?" Even Rithaniel in his newest version of the critique just said "it's not correct." WHY. WHY ISN'T IT CORRECT. Explaining that is what makes a good critique.
Oh, or about Kraj saying "This card is too confusing and wordy, here, fix it by adding two convoluted sentences to the text box." NONE of these are because I don't know what I'm talking about and I think I do. ALL of these are inane, nonsensical critiques. I don't believe I know better. The reason I'm playing is two-fold: To have fun, and to become a better designer. When the critiques on this poor level, I'm not getting either out of it. When I lose a round because of some ridiculous crap like "well, someone could abuse this card if they broke the game and had an infinite mana combo," ITS NOT FUN, and worse, ITS NOT INFORMATIVE OR HELPFUL TO BECOME A BETTER DESIGNER. Neither was Sojourns "its a bad idea" bit. What *is* helpful, is what you said exactly in this quote. That's helpful. That helps me be a better designer (and I appreciate pointing it out). But hey, why don't you just keep attacking me for your imaginary sense that I think I'm better than everyone. It's not true. I don't think I'm making the best cards each round, and I've said that before, several times. All I want - and I've also said this time and time again - is decent critiques so I can gain something from them. And most of what I get is crappy, rushed critiques. There are few exceptions.
Quote from Megiddo »
In my defense, any time I do a "special" judging I always (and explicitly) welcome entrants to PM me to receive an actual explanation behind my scores. I don't think it's fair to people to not offer that service, especially since people always ask! I like to keep this private because then it can be a conversation between two people (the two involved) and then it doesn't spam up the thread. I'll note that you* have taken advantage of this in the past. Do you also feel that I am a bad judge? I know I have weaknesses with judging, but I like to think that I put in some thought when I do it.
You're right, you did give me a critique for my card. And while you just now said that you have a weakness with judging, I have to argue that you're one of the few people here who do *not* have a weakness with judging. That isn't to say I totally agreed with your critique of my TukTuk remake, but what you presented was helpful, thoughtful, and *gasp* useful. I disagree that it's a useless card that gives you repeatable Shatter and Artifact-stealing, but hey, your other comments about the card were appropriate, like its costs. What you gave me was enough that I could edit the card and tighten it up. That's all I want.
The reason I think your special critiques are annoying is because I have to go and ask you (which actually ends up not so bad because there's a quick back and forth), but because I don't want to ask you about your critique on everyone elses cards, and I want to read them. I have to admit, though, that your rap battle critique was pretty good. It was informative and pointed out the flaws and good parts of the two cards (though, you did put slightly more of an emphasis on prose and rhyming than the critique).
Quote from ParaSiempre »
When everybody is wrong but you... it might be that you are the one that's wrong.
Yeah, I'm the one that's wrong. Yeah, okay there buddy. People consistently offer shoddy rushed critiques that make no sense and are consistently defended with the argument of "well, we're just amateurs here", and I'm the one that's wrong. To recap: I claim most critiques are bad. People reply "Well, sure, they probably are, because we're all amateur." Then I'm told "You're stupid and think you know everything but you don't and your complaints are unwarranted and you're wrong about everything and everything is fine. Ignore that we just admitted that critiques tend to be bad and amateur and rushed and squeezed into a tight schedule. BOO RADLEY."
If it wasn't so consistent, that would be one thing. Month after month, this is the case, and spans across all of the contests and games here. It's not just the critiques against my own cards I have a problem with. It's 90% of all critiques against all cards. It's obvious that very few judges/critics spend any serious time considering the cards, and the ones who do just want to feel self-important for having an opinion of some sort, regardless of how valid it is.
It does no good to address these privately with each judge, because the problem is endemic to the contests and games in whole. People are acting so self-important. Several judges have a "Don't whine about my critique" stance, and I can't help but notice those are the worst judges, who probably made that stance due to the overwhelming disagreement with their piss-poor critiques. Keeping it private between critics and contestants is why the critiques have gotten so bad. Not saying something publicly is why the same people give their half ass assessments. Hell, I fully believe that someone could post a card that comes out in the next set and get it blasted for stupid reasons, then praised by the community once it's printed. I'm pointing out something that's I've been holding in for months, hoping things would get better, or just assuming I wasn't posting very good cards, or whatever. But the longer I've been here, and the more I read everyone else's cards and critiques (yes, I read *everyone's* cards and critiques), the more I notice this wishy washy style of critiquing. If people have a problem with what I'm saying because the judges are volunteers, then maybe those people shouldn't volunteer. When you volunteer, you're making a pact to do the best job you can, and be critical - not just critical in bashing the cards, but critical as critical thinkers. That's not happening, and this "well, they volunteer to do it" doesn't cut it.
This forum is a joke, full of people whose only goal in life is to pretend they matter. I'm done with this foolish bull****.
The same with my card, Oculus. I got "This screams to be mythic" and "this should be uncommon." More on this later, but most of the judgings weren't very good, thoughtful or consistent this round.
Quote from Miccu, Agent of Serra »
Development (5/10) –
Viability – almost screams to be mythic. Adding -1/-1 counters is almost an all black ability (Instill Infection, Virulent wound), there are some cases of that in Blue (Vedalken Anatomist).
Balance – The flipped side of this card is disgusting, especially with Chained Throatseaker running around in Blue as well. The infect in there is probably what makes this a broken card, especially with an infinite mana combo.
Creative Writing – Merfolk do love thier Cosi! And the tie between the two names is very neat.
- I get points taken off for it being in blue, yet he actually cites a blue card that does what this does. I did a gatherer search, and there are more blue cards that do trixy stuff through adding -1/-1 counters.
- I get dinged for making a creature that's too powerful, and again, he cites another similar card.
- And then.. and if someone makes an infinite mana combo, it breaks my card?? He's really using this argument against it? So what, Fireball should be removed from future sets? Anything with an X should? Because someone might have an infinite mana combo?? What a stupid argument. Look, if someone has an infinite mana combo, they're probably going to win anyway. What a joke of a 'critique.'
- I get 5/10, and apparnelty, it's not because of the Creative Writing category, which means that between the Viability and Balance, he arbitrarily decided I get one point for each? EVEN AFTER CITING CARDS THAT ARE SIMILAR AND PRINTED! This is in addition to the points I lost in the Design category for the infinite mana combo bull.
Quote from Moss_Elemental »
Elegance – It may cause some confusion. See Viability.
7/10
Development:
Viability – First, this could be some colour other than blue. Second, I feel it could be uncommon. Finally, I don't like the flipped side's ability. I think the unflipped side should read “At the beginning of the end step, if there are three or more -1/-1 counters on CARDNAME, remove those counters, put that many +1/+1 counters on CARDNAME, then flip it.” The point is treating one type of counters as another may cause confusion.”
Balance – For 1UUUUUUUU, you get a 4/6 creature with infect, which is overcosted even for blue.
Creative Writing – No problems here.
7/10
- Again, another "this shouldn't be blue because I say so.
- Now, it's supposed to be an uncommon card!
- And his solution to the lack of elegance and confusion is.. what? To add another two convoluted sentences to an already cramped rules box. Was he even thinking? At all? Obviously not.
- How could it be confusing to say -1/-1 counters are +1/+1 counters when cards like Blood Moon exist. Were people confused about that?? "Well lets see.. it says nonbasic lands are mountains.. so.. uh.. i mean.. are they goblins, too?? I'm soooooo confused right now dkasjf dakj"
- A fully leveled up Beastbreaker of Bala Ged is 9GGGGG. A fully leveled up Caravan Escort is 10W. A fully leveled Hedron-Field Purist is 10WWWWW. A fully upgraded Figure of Destiny is :symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw:. My point? When a creature can get stronger over the span of several turns, it costs more. Duh. Besides, if you pay all that mana in one turn to cast it and upgrade it all the way, you get a 10/12 with infect because of all the +2/+2s.
Quote from Rithaniel »
Design (8/10) (Sound design earns the bonus point)
Creativity – Addition is an incline towards flatulence. Flatulence is an incline towards sunglasses. Sunglasses is an incline towards YEAH! 3/3
Elegance – Yummy oil, blarg! I'm better when I fight other things that eat the things I eat! 2/3
Potential – Hank is on the beachside with Timmy, who is at the oilside. Erick does the winning dance with the Johnny Zenith. Debra rolls her eyes, handing over her wallet to Spike, who then takes $0.50 out and hands it back. 2/3
Development (7/10) (Sound development earns the bonus point)
Viability – Blue is the color of a bruise. Bruised fists? -+? 1/3
Balance – Expense is adequate, but too much? Camel. 2/3
Creative Writing – Like a shot of oil, this is understand. 3/3
- What the **** are you even talking about? The only thing that made any sense was that I got two points taken off for it being it blue, something that isn't unheard of and certainly not true. Blue is just fine for this card, especially with the flavor.
- You're not Meggido, and its annoying when he does this too.
Quote from Eventide Sojourner »
Development (4/10)
Viability - A warping aspect can be Blue, though Black (or at least its inclusion) might make for a better fit. As complex as the card is, it has to be at least a Rare. I'm not sure if Mythic would be justified or not.
Balance - No issue with the CMC or activation costs. Combining -1/-1 and +1/+1 counters in a block is considered a bad idea. Combining them on the same card? Oy vey.
Creative Writing - The Chemist was devoted to Cosi. I doubt the Abomination would hold the same allegiance.
Quality - "-1/-1 counters on Cosi's Abomination are treated as though they are +1/+1 counters instead." I keep thinking there is an existing example of this type of replacement effect, yet I can never seem to find it. Unless you actually replace the negative counters with positive ones, you have to phrase it as a replacement effect.
- What does this have to do with balance?
- What are you talking about? -1/-1 and +1/+1 in the same block is a bad idea? Since when? Name me one single set that's exlusivily either -1/-1 or +1/+1.
- And its bad on the same card? Because there are several that were printed with it.
- The word "treated" only appears on cards in the form of reminder text for Phasing. ONLY. When a card or object's attributes are altered, there word used is always "are" and "is." Blood Moon. Ambush Commander. Hivestone. Humility. Shifting Sky. Etc. He can't find an existing example of his imaginary card because it doesn't exist. However, my templating does. It exists plenty. If you're to change the type of counter on the card, you say "these are those."
- So it looks like I shouldn't have lost any points for Viability since he straight up said it was the right rarity and it could be blue (and as we saw earlier, there are plenty of examples of -1/-1 in blue), and so I lost SEVEN total points because he can't imagine that an abomination could be called cosi's because it's basically cosi's creation, and because of some imaginary idea that some card he thinks existed exists and it's only his OPINION that it should be templated to look like ****, in contrary to every other example of an attribute being changed to another value.
Quote from Kraj »
Elegance – Nope. The unflipped side is a royal mess, requiring a great deal of careful thought just to figure out how the ability actually plays. The flipped side sounds nice and elegant, but in practice creates a lot of confusion.
Balance – Without Johnny's intervnetion, this will end up a 4/6 infect on turn five for a total of 9 mana, while doing nothing in the mean time. On turn six you could have Chained Throatseeker for no hassle while actually doing something the previous five turns. Once it's flipped there's potential for hilarity, and I guess it could be considered a Limited bomb since in the late game you can dump a ton of mana into it for a huge infect creature. But other than it, it seems pretty bad.
Creative Writing – The names are rather simple but the connection between them is good, and it hits on the classic 'mad scientist experiments on self turns into monster' idea pretty well. This doesn't connect very well with the concept of compleation, but I can imagine Phyrexians forcing him to experiment on himself which is a super-fun concept.
- Lots of careful thought like "Hmm, what's 2 minus 1. You know, I've never actually put a -1/-1 counter on something,a nd I don't know how to add 2 to a number thats just in my head. Oooh man, so much careful thought needed. Where's my 6 year old nephew when I need him???"
- Yeah, -1/-1s are +1/+1s is confusing, just like Blood Moon or any other card that says X's are Y's. Where does this confusion come from? It's not confusing at all. It's pretty straight forward, actually. Well, I guess if it takes careful thought to subtract one then add two, it would be pretty confusing.
- Like everyone else, he missed that not only is it a tougher monster than Chained Throatseeker (who can only attack under specific condition), it actually eats infect damage, AND you can pay for it over multiple turns. Just like Level Ups. "Dur, why would I use a level up when I can BLANKOUT"
- What part doesn't say compleation? Was it the part of a tricksy merfolk experimenting on himself with phyrexian oil? Was it the infect? Was it the infect soaking ability? I don't understand how anyone couldn't see that? Especially after seeing the mad scientist experiments on himself angle!!!
I read over the critiques of other player's cards, and there's the same level of stupidity. What a complete ****ing joke you people are.
I'm with Surging Chaos here. The DCC is full of terrible, terrible voters. It's almost like there are so many cards to consider that most people just kinda scan the cards and go 'eh, that one looks fine. Now that I voted, I get to submit a card!'
It seems like each judge getting two match ups is a real good idea. Sort of the 'second opinion' idea that keeps players from getting dropped because the judge missed something important.
Just sayin, I really like MDenham's card today. I don't know how useful it would be without playing with it, but there's definitely been more than one time I've wanted to undo a play.
Stone MonkWW
Creature — Elemental Human (R) WW,t: Put a charge counter on Stone Monk. Stone Monk's power becomes 0 and is indestructible until end of turn.
Sacrifice Stone Monk: Gain 2 life for each charge counter on Stone Monk. The ancient order of the Stone Monk train in secret — only their abilities have become known to the rest of us.
2/2
Unless I get a perfect score and Oculus gets no top 3's, I'm not going to catch up. And let's be honest, I'm not a good enough designer to do that, and Oculus has a clear history of scoring very well in top 3's.
Though, im a little confused as to how the scores are being tallied. Looking at the huge differences between peoples scores doesnt help much.
This confused me when I first started, too.
It goes like this:
You get 3 points for each time a player gives you #1.
You get 2 points for each time a player gives you #2.
You get 1 point for each time a player gives you #3.
You get 1 point for writing Critiques.
You get 1 point for assigning Top 3.
And then your score for the round is the percentage of how many points are possible (if every critiquing player gives you #1, and you do the crits/top 3) vs how many you actually got.
So, 5 players doing critiques = 17 total points (3 from each player = 15, and 2 for crits/top 3). So of those 5 players, if you get 2 first places and a third place, and do the crits/top 3, you get (+3 +3 +1 +1 +1 = 9/17 = 53 points)
Keep in mind you're doing this for fun. If you're not having fun, then that's a good enough reason to drop.
This. I also do these games to be a better designer, but shoddy critiques offer nothing towards that.
I am not pretending I made a perfect card. I thought I made it clear that I'm not under the assumption that I'm so leet pro and if only people weren't stupid, they'd see it. I pointed out that my issue with the critiques is rampant through all contests and games, and against all cards - not just mine. I sure do love the attitude of "oh, well, you're just upset because you think you're perfect." It's more of that shoddy critic style that's all over these boards.
Fair enough, I didn't know this about design. I would love to see where else I've had a complaint with a critique that wasn't valid. Like when people said "when land enters the battlefield" doesn't tie mechanically to "when land enters the battlefield" after you publicly suggested using that very mechanic to tie my land to th following round's card? What about the other critiques I cited above, like saying my card could be broken due to an outside infinite mana combo? Or that the final casting cost is too high, yet it's nothing compared to level up cards or that Kithkin guy? Or the one about how "your card isn't blue, but let me reference two other blue cards that has similar traits?" Or Sojourn's randomly invented templating rules? Or how "hey, this is mythic." mashes with "this is uncommon." Or any of the rest of it? Why couldn't Sojourn have said "No block has both +1/+1 counters AND -1/-1 counters?" instead of just saying "it's a bad idea." with kind of an assy "oy vey?" Even Rithaniel in his newest version of the critique just said "it's not correct." WHY. WHY ISN'T IT CORRECT. Explaining that is what makes a good critique.
Oh, or about Kraj saying "This card is too confusing and wordy, here, fix it by adding two convoluted sentences to the text box." NONE of these are because I don't know what I'm talking about and I think I do. ALL of these are inane, nonsensical critiques. I don't believe I know better. The reason I'm playing is two-fold: To have fun, and to become a better designer. When the critiques on this poor level, I'm not getting either out of it. When I lose a round because of some ridiculous crap like "well, someone could abuse this card if they broke the game and had an infinite mana combo," ITS NOT FUN, and worse, ITS NOT INFORMATIVE OR HELPFUL TO BECOME A BETTER DESIGNER. Neither was Sojourns "its a bad idea" bit. What *is* helpful, is what you said exactly in this quote. That's helpful. That helps me be a better designer (and I appreciate pointing it out). But hey, why don't you just keep attacking me for your imaginary sense that I think I'm better than everyone. It's not true. I don't think I'm making the best cards each round, and I've said that before, several times. All I want - and I've also said this time and time again - is decent critiques so I can gain something from them. And most of what I get is crappy, rushed critiques. There are few exceptions.
You're right, you did give me a critique for my card. And while you just now said that you have a weakness with judging, I have to argue that you're one of the few people here who do *not* have a weakness with judging. That isn't to say I totally agreed with your critique of my TukTuk remake, but what you presented was helpful, thoughtful, and *gasp* useful. I disagree that it's a useless card that gives you repeatable Shatter and Artifact-stealing, but hey, your other comments about the card were appropriate, like its costs. What you gave me was enough that I could edit the card and tighten it up. That's all I want.
The reason I think your special critiques are annoying is because I have to go and ask you (which actually ends up not so bad because there's a quick back and forth), but because I don't want to ask you about your critique on everyone elses cards, and I want to read them. I have to admit, though, that your rap battle critique was pretty good. It was informative and pointed out the flaws and good parts of the two cards (though, you did put slightly more of an emphasis on prose and rhyming than the critique).
Yeah, I'm the one that's wrong. Yeah, okay there buddy. People consistently offer shoddy rushed critiques that make no sense and are consistently defended with the argument of "well, we're just amateurs here", and I'm the one that's wrong. To recap: I claim most critiques are bad. People reply "Well, sure, they probably are, because we're all amateur." Then I'm told "You're stupid and think you know everything but you don't and your complaints are unwarranted and you're wrong about everything and everything is fine. Ignore that we just admitted that critiques tend to be bad and amateur and rushed and squeezed into a tight schedule. BOO RADLEY."
It does no good to address these privately with each judge, because the problem is endemic to the contests and games in whole. People are acting so self-important. Several judges have a "Don't whine about my critique" stance, and I can't help but notice those are the worst judges, who probably made that stance due to the overwhelming disagreement with their piss-poor critiques. Keeping it private between critics and contestants is why the critiques have gotten so bad. Not saying something publicly is why the same people give their half ass assessments. Hell, I fully believe that someone could post a card that comes out in the next set and get it blasted for stupid reasons, then praised by the community once it's printed. I'm pointing out something that's I've been holding in for months, hoping things would get better, or just assuming I wasn't posting very good cards, or whatever. But the longer I've been here, and the more I read everyone else's cards and critiques (yes, I read *everyone's* cards and critiques), the more I notice this wishy washy style of critiquing. If people have a problem with what I'm saying because the judges are volunteers, then maybe those people shouldn't volunteer. When you volunteer, you're making a pact to do the best job you can, and be critical - not just critical in bashing the cards, but critical as critical thinkers. That's not happening, and this "well, they volunteer to do it" doesn't cut it.
This forum is a joke, full of people whose only goal in life is to pretend they matter. I'm done with this foolish bull****.
- I get points taken off for it being in blue, yet he actually cites a blue card that does what this does. I did a gatherer search, and there are more blue cards that do trixy stuff through adding -1/-1 counters.
- I get dinged for making a creature that's too powerful, and again, he cites another similar card.
- And then.. and if someone makes an infinite mana combo, it breaks my card?? He's really using this argument against it? So what, Fireball should be removed from future sets? Anything with an X should? Because someone might have an infinite mana combo?? What a stupid argument. Look, if someone has an infinite mana combo, they're probably going to win anyway. What a joke of a 'critique.'
- I get 5/10, and apparnelty, it's not because of the Creative Writing category, which means that between the Viability and Balance, he arbitrarily decided I get one point for each? EVEN AFTER CITING CARDS THAT ARE SIMILAR AND PRINTED! This is in addition to the points I lost in the Design category for the infinite mana combo bull.
- Again, another "this shouldn't be blue because I say so.
- Now, it's supposed to be an uncommon card!
- And his solution to the lack of elegance and confusion is.. what? To add another two convoluted sentences to an already cramped rules box. Was he even thinking? At all? Obviously not.
- How could it be confusing to say -1/-1 counters are +1/+1 counters when cards like Blood Moon exist. Were people confused about that?? "Well lets see.. it says nonbasic lands are mountains.. so.. uh.. i mean.. are they goblins, too?? I'm soooooo confused right now dkasjf dakj"
- A fully leveled up Beastbreaker of Bala Ged is 9GGGGG. A fully leveled up Caravan Escort is 10W. A fully leveled Hedron-Field Purist is 10WWWWW. A fully upgraded Figure of Destiny is :symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw:. My point? When a creature can get stronger over the span of several turns, it costs more. Duh. Besides, if you pay all that mana in one turn to cast it and upgrade it all the way, you get a 10/12 with infect because of all the +2/+2s.
- What the **** are you even talking about? The only thing that made any sense was that I got two points taken off for it being it blue, something that isn't unheard of and certainly not true. Blue is just fine for this card, especially with the flavor.
- You're not Meggido, and its annoying when he does this too.
- What does this have to do with balance?
- What are you talking about? -1/-1 and +1/+1 in the same block is a bad idea? Since when? Name me one single set that's exlusivily either -1/-1 or +1/+1.
- And its bad on the same card? Because there are several that were printed with it.
- The word "treated" only appears on cards in the form of reminder text for Phasing. ONLY. When a card or object's attributes are altered, there word used is always "are" and "is." Blood Moon. Ambush Commander. Hivestone. Humility. Shifting Sky. Etc. He can't find an existing example of his imaginary card because it doesn't exist. However, my templating does. It exists plenty. If you're to change the type of counter on the card, you say "these are those."
- So it looks like I shouldn't have lost any points for Viability since he straight up said it was the right rarity and it could be blue (and as we saw earlier, there are plenty of examples of -1/-1 in blue), and so I lost SEVEN total points because he can't imagine that an abomination could be called cosi's because it's basically cosi's creation, and because of some imaginary idea that some card he thinks existed exists and it's only his OPINION that it should be templated to look like ****, in contrary to every other example of an attribute being changed to another value.
- Lots of careful thought like "Hmm, what's 2 minus 1. You know, I've never actually put a -1/-1 counter on something,a nd I don't know how to add 2 to a number thats just in my head. Oooh man, so much careful thought needed. Where's my 6 year old nephew when I need him???"
- Yeah, -1/-1s are +1/+1s is confusing, just like Blood Moon or any other card that says X's are Y's. Where does this confusion come from? It's not confusing at all. It's pretty straight forward, actually. Well, I guess if it takes careful thought to subtract one then add two, it would be pretty confusing.
- Like everyone else, he missed that not only is it a tougher monster than Chained Throatseeker (who can only attack under specific condition), it actually eats infect damage, AND you can pay for it over multiple turns. Just like Level Ups. "Dur, why would I use a level up when I can BLANKOUT"
- What part doesn't say compleation? Was it the part of a tricksy merfolk experimenting on himself with phyrexian oil? Was it the infect? Was it the infect soaking ability? I don't understand how anyone couldn't see that? Especially after seeing the mad scientist experiments on himself angle!!!
I read over the critiques of other player's cards, and there's the same level of stupidity. What a complete ****ing joke you people are.
Flaming.
Too bad this wasn't revealed before this round started...
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=340041
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=332037
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=324709
PLAYER X vs PLAYER Y
?
Creature — Elemental Human (R)
WW,t: Put a charge counter on Stone Monk. Stone Monk's power becomes 0 and is indestructible until end of turn.
Sacrifice Stone Monk: Gain 2 life for each charge counter on Stone Monk.
The ancient order of the Stone Monk train in secret — only their abilities have become known to the rest of us.
2/2
This confused me when I first started, too.
It goes like this:
You get 3 points for each time a player gives you #1.
You get 2 points for each time a player gives you #2.
You get 1 point for each time a player gives you #3.
You get 1 point for writing Critiques.
You get 1 point for assigning Top 3.
And then your score for the round is the percentage of how many points are possible (if every critiquing player gives you #1, and you do the crits/top 3) vs how many you actually got.
So, 5 players doing critiques = 17 total points (3 from each player = 15, and 2 for crits/top 3). So of those 5 players, if you get 2 first places and a third place, and do the crits/top 3, you get (+3 +3 +1 +1 +1 = 9/17 = 53 points)
This. I also do these games to be a better designer, but shoddy critiques offer nothing towards that.