MTGNexus

Cardz5000 wrote: ↑

4 years ago

Krishnath
A friendly reminder that ability words are not rules text and don't carry any mechanical meaning. You'll want to make sure to spell out what desertfall actually means (take a look at how landfall is formatted for an example.)

I will do so, ASAP.

Edit: Done, it was merely a lapse of thought that caused me to forget.

Designing a green card with prowess has proven an extremely mind-bendy exercise.

spacemonaut wrote: ↑

4 years ago

Designing a green card with prowess has proven an extremely mind-bendy exercise.

Which is why I saved it for the finals!

Can we edit our cards after submitting them, but before the deadline?

Of course.

The August CCL final poll is up.

For the current challenge are off colour costs allowed?

Dragonlover

[mention]Krishnath[/mention]: I don't mean to be rude, but I did want to correct a misconception that you seemed to have about my card (especially since yours is the first evaluation and I didn't want other people to be, ahem, "inspired" by it ). Unless I'm very wrong about how prowess works, I don't think it's possible for Stormcloud Mantle to not give exactly +1/+1 from the first noncreature spell a player casts in a turn, because both prowess and the prowess-granting ability trigger off the same event: the casting of the spell. So the first spell they cast would generate the following triggers, which could be stacked in any order:

a) Prowess trigger
b) "This creature gets prowess" trigger

So even if you have the "this creature gets prowess" trigger resolve first, there's no way for the new instance of prowess to trigger -- the moment for prowess to trigger (i.e., the casting of the spell) has already passed. Similarly, the second spell shouldn't possibly give anything other than +2/+2.

Other more judgy people (pun entirely intended) should feel free to chime in if I'm grossly misunderstanding the rules, but at least that's how I think it should work.

slimytrout wrote: ↑

4 years ago

Krishnath: I don't mean to be rude, but I did want to correct a misconception that you seemed to have about my card (especially since yours is the first evaluation and I didn't want other people to be, ahem, "inspired" by it ). Unless I'm very wrong about how prowess works, I don't think it's possible for Stormcloud Mantle to not give exactly +1/+1 from the first noncreature spell a player casts in a turn, because both prowess and the prowess-granting ability trigger off the same event: the casting of the spell. So the first spell they cast would generate the following triggers, which could be stacked in any order:

a) Prowess trigger
b) "This creature gets prowess" trigger

So even if you have the "this creature gets prowess" trigger resolve first, there's no way for the new instance of prowess to trigger -- the moment for prowess to trigger (i.e., the casting of the spell) has already passed. Similarly, the second spell shouldn't possibly give anything other than +2/+2.

Other more judgy people (pun entirely intended) should feel free to chime in if I'm grossly misunderstanding the rules, but at least that's how I think it should work.

Don't worry about being rude, I've been on the net for long enough to not be easily insulted.

As for the card. that was what I thought, but as I was not entirely certain, which is why I commented the way I did. I have played this game since '94 and the stack still gives me a little trouble from time to time, particularly when it comes to multiple abilities in the same sentence. >.<

Either way, I liked the card.

Man, critiquing is hard when all the cards are really cool! Also, I wish I'd hit on soil=ramp as a concept, my legendary Spore Frog concept might have made it in as my submission.

Dragonlover

Re: Desertfall.

Only reason I went with Desertfall is because of, well, I couldn't come up with a better name for the mechanic at the time. >.<

Also, note to self, things like Landfall and the like are in italics. Second time I've forgot now.

It conveyed what it needed to succinctly, so ultimately that's fine I reckon. Like, if you saw it as an actual card from a new set you'd automatically grok it without needing an article from Wizards, y'know?

Dragonlover

Dragonlover wrote: ↑

4 years ago

It conveyed what it needed to succinctly, so ultimately that's fine I reckon. Like, if you saw it as an actual card from a new set you'd automatically grok it without needing an article from Wizards, y'know?

Dragonlover

Indeed.

Also, slimytrout, regarding Rakina: The reason I went the way I did is because I know that duststorms are a thing in very dry and open areas, like, you know certain types of deserts. Not all deserts are sandy after all. Which you of course know with your PHD. For example, most of Arizona is dry enough that it can be classified as a stony desert, and most of Antarctica is classified as a Frozen Desert. If an area is considered a desert or not is entirely reliant on the average yearly rainfall, not whether or not it is sandy.

You're definitely right that duststorms are more likely to happen in areas with little to no plant life to prevent erosion, which certainly includes deserts. And in fact, many things that are called "sandstorms" don't actually include sand (by the USDA definition), since those grains are too big to be transported by the wind. All of which is to say, it was probably a mistake on my part to try to appeal to ultimately not-that-relevant science in this way when what I really meant was: I don't see what makes this a card that combines the flavor of "sand" and "dust" (other than that it includes both of those words) as opposed to just one or the other of the two.

slimytrout wrote: ↑

4 years ago

You're definitely right that duststorms are more likely to happen in areas with little to no plant life to prevent erosion, which certainly includes deserts. And in fact, many things that are called "sandstorms" don't actually include sand (by the USDA definition), since those grains are too big to be transported by the wind. All of which is to say, it was probably a mistake on my part to try to appeal to ultimately not-that-relevant science in this way when what I really meant was: I don't see what makes this a card that combines the flavor of "sand" and "dust" (other than that it includes both of those words) as opposed to just one or the other of the two.

That is quite fair, although on the other hand, MTG doesn't really distinct between the flavor of the two all that much, other than Dust tends to obscure while sand tends to damage or remove. Direct damage didn't feel right with a monogreen card, which is why I went the token creation route via desertfall, but obscurement was easy, which lead to the hexproof as that is greens primary method of obscurement. Indestructibility was, I admit, entirely used for flavor reasons. To be fair, in hindsight I could have made it fight other creatures whenever the player dropped a desert instead, but then again that really didn't mesh well with the flavor of "the mother of all wurms" I was going for.

Krishnath wrote: ↑

4 years ago

Only thing that could have made them better would be if they also gave a bonus to plants, treefolk, and fungus, but it's not that important.

I honestly just didn't think about that, and the card is already crowded enough as is. But this is a really nice idea that would fit perfectly as a second version of Aranon (it matches the character very well as I've imagined it) or as its own separate card.

bravelion83 wrote: ↑

4 years ago

Krishnath wrote: ↑

4 years ago

Only thing that could have made them better would be if they also gave a bonus to plants, treefolk, and fungus, but it's not that important.

I honestly just didn't think about that, and the card is already crowded enough as is. But this is a really nice idea that would fit perfectly as a second version of Aranon (it matches the character very well as I've imagined it) or as its own separate card.

Good thing that it isn't unusual for the same character to get multiple cards in MTG.

bravelion83 wrote: ↑

4 years ago

In fact it's not right. Cloak of Dust has no problems, but Cloak of Sand's last ability doesn't work as is. It's half replacement effect (a kind of static ability), half triggered ability. If it's meant to be the former, the word "instead" is missing at the end. As is the game sees an event trying to be replaced but it doesn't know with what. If it's meant to be the latter, it should begin with "When", probably "When enchanted creature deals combat damage to a creature, etc..." Whichever one you choose is very relevant, because there's a huge difference: if it's a replacement effect, the receiving creature doesn't take any combat damage, but just a single point of damage from the Cloak. If it's a triggered ability, it still takes the combat damage and then the point of damage from the Cloak in addition to that.

It's actually supposed to hit *before* combat damage, which is why I worded it the way I did. Basically, if the enchanted creature *would* deal combat damage to a creature, the cloak triggers and deals 1 damage before the combat damage step. It's kinda weird though, but it *should* work. If no combat damage would be dealt, the cloak is not supposed to trigger.

I still think that it doesn't work as is (*), but I understand your intention. That's very complicated to turn into a functional wording. I don't even know if it's possible. If we were in R&D designing this card for real, I'd advise you to consider different options. I'll let you know if I can think of some version of the wording that does what you want it to do, but I can't guarantee that it will be short and/or very elegant.
* Your technically incorrect use of "the Cloak triggers" (it's not even a triggered ability as is) suggests me that this might be the source of the confusion. Thinking it works like a triggered ability while it's technically not. As for my own submission, the critiques I've read so far are totally right. There is a huge power difference between my cards, I was perfectly aware of it even before actually posting them. I still think that's the best I could have done with my colors and themes. Yes, blue soil was indeed a pain to design to. I chose to focus on that first, and design the black one later. That way, I had relative freedom for the blue card, designing the easiest one later specifically to the constraints that the blue one would have created, whatever it was going to be. I also didn't want two mirrored cards to be different rarities, and the black one absolutely needs to be a rare at the very least. In a vacuum, yes, Liquefying Soil would probably be an uncommon and Corrosive Mist a rare. I don't know if this was the right approach, but that's what I did and why my cards are what they are. I feel like picking relatively easy choices in the first two rounds has come back to haunt me in round 3. Oh well, playing out of the box is just a skill I lack, even in real life. I always play it safe. Sometimes it's not the right thing to do.

bravelion83 wrote: ↑

4 years ago

I still think that it doesn't work as is (*), but I understand your intention. That's very complicated to turn into a functional wording. I don't even know if it's possible. If we were in R&D designing this card for real, I'd advise you to consider different options. I'll let you know if I can think of some version of the wording that does what you want it to do, but I can't guarantee that it will be short and/or very elegant.
* Your technically incorrect use of "the Cloak triggers" (it's not even a triggered ability as is) suggests me that this might be the source of the confusion. Thinking it works like a triggered ability while it's technically not.

edit

Show

Hide

So, you basically need the ability to resolve before the combat damage step and look forward in time to see if combat damage is about to be dealt (we shouldn't use the words "if ... would ... instead" because those are associated to a replacement effect, which I'm not sure this wants to be). I can't think of any other existing ability that looks forward in time. Anyway, the last chance you have for this to resolve is the declare blockers step, if you want it to resolve before combat damage. A triggered ability with "Whenever enchanted creature becomes blocked" as the trigger comes close, but it still triggers anyway even if no combat damage is about to be dealt, and it also triggers only once regardless of the number of creatures blocking. If you want it to trigger for each creature blocking enchanted creature, you could say "Whenever enchanted creature becomes blocked by a creature", but that doesn't solve the first problem either. I'm not sure that problem can be solved at all. The problem, as I said, is that you need the ability to look forward in time. There are many ability that look back in time, but I don't know how you could have one that looks forward. Again, if we were in R&D for real, I'd probably just advise you to go with either one of those triggers and accept the slight loss of functionality.

As for my own submission, the critiques I've read so far are totally right. There is a huge power difference between my cards, I was perfectly aware of it even before actually posting them. I still think that's the best I could have done with my colors and themes. Yes, blue soil was indeed a pain to design to. I chose to focus on that first, and design the black one later. That way, I had relative freedom for the blue card, designing the easiest one later specifically to the constraints that the blue one would have created, whatever it was going to be. I also didn't want two mirrored cards to be different rarities, and the black one absolutely needs to be a rare at the very least. In a vacuum, yes, Liquefying Soil would probably be an uncommon and Corrosive Mist a rare. I don't know if this was the right approach, but that's what I did and why my cards are what they are. I feel like picking relatively easy choices in the first two rounds has come back to haunt me in round 3. Oh well, playing out of the box is just a skill I lack, even in real life. I always play it safe. Sometimes it's not the right thing to do.

I understand completely. Had I known the issues I'd end up having with my chosen elements, I'd probably have chosen differently.

As the month's now nearly concluded, signups are now open for the CCL host for next month. Even if you've never done this before, I encourage anyone to try - I'd be happy to walk you through the process.

October's first round is now up, and so is the September final!

A few comments about the final poll for September.

It amazed me (and made my choice very difficult) the fact that both submissions were more or less the same to me: one card that's in the wrong colors, one or two cards that didn't really excite me, and only one or two cards that made me go like "this is good". I ended up voting for the one that had only one card in the second category and two in the third one, which is Subject16's, but to me the difference between the two submissions is very small, and considering only these, I could have voted for Henlock just as easily. So, in the end, the main tiebreaker for me was the presence (Subject16) or absence (Henlock) of flavor text.

Cards out of color:
• Subject16's Barren Ground - It should totally be blue and not white.
• Henlock's Equinox Harvest - The card draw ability is blue, green should specifically draw based on creatures, and white is there just for convoke. If you extended convoke to blue (and there is a precedent in Chief Engineer), this card could and should have been monoblue.

Cards that didn't excite me (a more elegant way of saying "that made me go 'meh' or just 'fair'"):
• Subject16's Grain Silo - As I read it made me go "ok, just an artifact version of the notoriously weak storage lands from Time Spiral". Nothing to write home about.
• Henlock's From Dust Came - It immediately reminded me of Reign of the Pit, it's just milling instead of edict.
• Henlock's Dwarven Ale - Perfectly reasonable card, but it's not that exciting. I also think this could and probably should be common, and that this card specifically has been penalized by the lack of flavor text more than the others.

Cards that I liked:
• Henlock's Rainy Season - I really like its simplicity and effectiveness, but for today's standards having lands that produce more than one mana is like playing with fire.
• Subject16's Anatomize and Mass Immolation - I put these together because they feel quite similar to me. Both sacrifice a creature as an additional cost for a relevant effect in their colors. If you look at them in this way you see that they are rather similar, despite being different rarities and colors. Obviously, this wasn't really a positive thing.

So it was essentially a tie. Yes, Subject16 had one more card in the highest category but the similarity of those two cards penalized them. Again, what made me decide to vote for Subject16 in end was the presence of flavor text. But this time it has been a very hard choice, at least to me.

Round 2 of October's CCL is now up!

Congratulations to [mention]Henlock[/mention], September's CCL winner!