The DCC Discussion Thread

slimytrout
Posts: 1192
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by slimytrout » 1 year ago

folding_music wrote:
1 year ago
might as well take the rest of the month off, designed my fave card ever yesterday and got no votes <3 seeya
I loved the idea of the card, but it had one substantial problem that I couldn't overlook - enchantments don't tap. If it had been an artifact with that ability that tapped artifacts, I would definitely have voted for it.

User avatar
void_nothing
The Chosen
Posts: 7275
Joined: 2 years ago
Answers: 68
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Snapgulch, Etrusa

Post by void_nothing » 1 year ago

slimytrout wrote:
1 year ago
I loved the idea of the card, but it had one substantial problem that I couldn't overlook - enchantments don't tap. If it had been an artifact with that ability that tapped artifacts, I would definitely have voted for it.
Agreed. I think the Future Sight tapchantments were a mistake, and I wouldn't want to repeat that in any variant. Part of it is for aesthetic reasons - it just doesn't read nicely in my opinion - and part of it is because it's a cost that's basically no cost at all; tapping enchantments usually doesn't mean anything unless they're enchantment creatures or somesuch.

Again, as an artifact, I too would have loved the concept.
Psst, check the second page of Custom Card Contests & Games! Because of the daily contests, a lot of games fall down to there.

The greatest (fake) pro wrestling on the internet

User avatar
bravelion83
Survivor. I've survived.
Posts: 2255
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Florence, Italy

Post by bravelion83 » 1 year ago

Players need to learn that Auras on creatures do NOT tap when the enchanted creature does though. I always point it out to my opponent in real life, politely of course, but it's one of my pet peeves in Magic. That's why I actually like the tapping enchantments from Future Sight, I hoped it could be a learning opportunity for everyone. But it turns out it wasn't... Probably people do that because mentally they consider the creature and the Aura enchanting it as a single object, which they're not. I don't know. Anyway, these are my thoughts.
Disclaimer: all of what I've written in this post is just my own personal opinion.
My CCCG Resume (Updated on September 28th 2021)
Show
Blue means it was on MTGSalvation. Green means it was here on MTGNexus.
MCC - Winner (6): Oct 2014, Apr Nov 2017, Jan 2018, Apr Jun 2019 || Host (21): Dec 2014, Apr Jul Aug Dec 2015, Mar Jul Aug Oct 2016, Feb Jul 2017, Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last ever on MTGSalvation), Aug 2019 (first ever on MTGNexus) Oct 2019, Jan Jun 2020 Apr Oct 2021 || Judge (47): every month from Nov 2014 to Nov 2016 except Oct 2015, every month from Feb to Jul 2017 except Apr 2017, then Oct 2017, May Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last ever on MTGSalvation), every month from Aug 2019 (first ever on MTGNexus) to Feb 2020, May Jun 2020, Mar Apr Sep Oct 2021
CCL - Winner (4): Jul 2016 (tied with Flatline), May 2017, Jul 2019 (last ever on MTGSalvation), Jun 2021 (tied with slimytrout) || Host (5): Feb 2015, Mar Apr May Jun 2016
DCC - Winner (1): Mar 2015 (tied with Piar) || Host (5): May Oct 2015, Jan 2016, Jun Sep 2021
My projects (Updated on June 14th 2019)
Show
All on MTGSalvation for now. See this Blogger post.
Author of the MCC Guidelines and FAQ.

Legend
Aethernaut
Posts: 733
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Eternity

Post by Legend » 1 year ago

folding_music wrote:
1 year ago
votes: kwanyeegor-ii, wizyard

Logorrhoea 1r
Enchantment (M)
All cards in all player's hands gain "Cycling: Tap an untapped enchantment you control".
I like this concept a lot, but it doesn't seems rare rather than mythic.

Why not the wording:

Tap an untapped enchantment you control, Discard a card: Draw a card.

Or

Enchantments you control have "T, Discard a card: Draw a card."
“Comboing in Commander is like dunking on a seven foot hoop.” – Dana Roach

“Making a deck that other people want to play against – that’s Commander.” – Gavin Duggan

"I want my brain to win games, not my cards." – Sheldon Menery

User avatar
Flatline
The Heartbeat of America
Posts: 444
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Someplace Special

Post by Flatline » 1 year ago

void_nothing wrote:
1 year ago
This is the thread for the 19th.
What did I have? It looks like you fixed it. Thanks. It's been a rough week for me.

As long as I'm here....The thread will probably be a bit later than normal tonight. I'm going to see a late viewing of the new Star Wars movie tonight. I'm already thinking about what a card named "Stink Bomb" would look like. :)
Card Contest Victories
Show
DCC
Show
(25 Total) - October 2014; December 2014; January 2015; April 2015; June 2015; August 2015; September 2015; November 2015; December 2015(T); January 2016; March 2016(T); April 2016; June 2016; October 2016; December 2016(T); February 2017; April 2017; December 2017; November 2018(T); January 2019; April 2019; June 2019; August 2019; October 2019; March 2020
MCC
Show
(8 Total) - May 2015; May 2016; June 2016; August 2016; October 2016; December 2016; October 2017; May 2019
CCL
Show
(7 Total) - September 2015; October 2015; January 2016; March 2016; April 2016; July 2016(T); March 2019(T)

User avatar
RattingRots
Pathological Scryer
Posts: 445
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by RattingRots » 1 year ago

bravelion83 wrote:
1 year ago
Reanimate with Fire 2BBR
Enchantment — Aura (U)
Enchant creature
As Reanimate with Fire enters the battlefield, return a creature card from your graveyard to the battlefield and attach Reanimate with Fire to it.
Enchanted creature gets +1/+0, has haste, and is a Zombie in addition to its other types.
If enchanted creature would leave the battlefield, exile it instead.
I was thinking about this card and how easily you could do it and still have it be an aura, and I came up with this slightly tangential idea. Thought you might be interested bravelion, but I didn't want to put something this ripped off in the DCC:

Breath of Pyre 1R
Enchantment — Aura (R)
Enchant creature
Enchanted creature gets +1/+0 and has haste.
5BB: Return target creature card from your graveyard to the battlefield and attach ~ to it. Activate this ability only any time you could cast a sorcery.
For Sale: Boots of +2 intellect. Never worn.

User avatar
bravelion83
Survivor. I've survived.
Posts: 2255
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Florence, Italy

Post by bravelion83 » 1 year ago

.
RattingRots wrote:
1 year ago
bravelion83 wrote:
1 year ago
Reanimate with Fire 2BBR
Enchantment — Aura (U)
Enchant creature
As Reanimate with Fire enters the battlefield, return a creature card from your graveyard to the battlefield and attach Reanimate with Fire to it.
Enchanted creature gets +1/+0, has haste, and is a Zombie in addition to its other types.
If enchanted creature would leave the battlefield, exile it instead.
I was thinking about this card and how easily you could do it and still have it be an aura, and I came up with this slightly tangential idea. Thought you might be interested bravelion, but I didn't want to put something this ripped off in the DCC:

Breath of Pyre 1R
Enchantment — Aura (R)
Enchant creature
Enchanted creature gets +1/+0 and has haste.
5BB: Return target creature card from your graveyard to the battlefield and attach ~ to it. Activate this ability only any time you could cast a sorcery.
Thank you very much for not exploiting it. Anyway, it's close, but it's not exactly what I wanted my card to do. I wanted it to require no other creatures to enchant, I wanted it to reanimate the creature itself and then attach itself to it, giving it the bonus, and all without the help of any other creature and with an exile clause to prevent unwanted loops. Essentially, I wanted it to work on an empty battlefield too. Breath of Pyre can't even be cast on an empty battlefield. Neither Reanimate with Fire actually, and in fact that's one of the mistakes with that card. What I'm currently thinking about it is that it would actually require Animate Dead levels of wordiness and complexity to do it, and it's just not worth it. Maybe I should have made it as a colored equipment? I don't know. Anyway, thanks for trying. If you manage to crack the puzzle, please let me know! :)
Last edited by bravelion83 1 year ago, edited 2 times in total.
My CCCG Resume (Updated on September 28th 2021)
Show
Blue means it was on MTGSalvation. Green means it was here on MTGNexus.
MCC - Winner (6): Oct 2014, Apr Nov 2017, Jan 2018, Apr Jun 2019 || Host (21): Dec 2014, Apr Jul Aug Dec 2015, Mar Jul Aug Oct 2016, Feb Jul 2017, Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last ever on MTGSalvation), Aug 2019 (first ever on MTGNexus) Oct 2019, Jan Jun 2020 Apr Oct 2021 || Judge (47): every month from Nov 2014 to Nov 2016 except Oct 2015, every month from Feb to Jul 2017 except Apr 2017, then Oct 2017, May Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last ever on MTGSalvation), every month from Aug 2019 (first ever on MTGNexus) to Feb 2020, May Jun 2020, Mar Apr Sep Oct 2021
CCL - Winner (4): Jul 2016 (tied with Flatline), May 2017, Jul 2019 (last ever on MTGSalvation), Jun 2021 (tied with slimytrout) || Host (5): Feb 2015, Mar Apr May Jun 2016
DCC - Winner (1): Mar 2015 (tied with Piar) || Host (5): May Oct 2015, Jan 2016, Jun Sep 2021
My projects (Updated on June 14th 2019)
Show
All on MTGSalvation for now. See this Blogger post.
Author of the MCC Guidelines and FAQ.

User avatar
RattingRots
Pathological Scryer
Posts: 445
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by RattingRots » 1 year ago

bravelion83 wrote:
1 year ago
Thank you very much for not exploiting it. Anyway, it's close, but it's not exactly what I wanted my card to do. I wanted it to require no other creatures to enchant, I wanted it to reanimate the creature itself and then attach itself to it, giving it the bonus, and all without the help of any other creature and with an exile clause to prevent unwanted loops. Essentially, I wanted it to work on an empty battlefield too. Breath of Pyre can't even be cast on an empty battlefield. Neither Reanimate with Fire actually, and in fact that's one of the mistakes with that card. What I'm currently thinking about it is that it would actually require Animate Dead levels of wordiness and complexity to do it, and it's just not worth it. Maybe I should have made it as a colored equipment? I don't know. Anyway, thanks for trying. If you manage to crack the puzzle, please let me know! :)
I realize it wasn't quite the same - more of just a riff on the concept.

You know the rules way better than me, but I think you could make an aura that does exactly what you want and isn't quite as wordy as animate dead. I think Animate Dead suffers from Oubliette levels of archaic wording backed up by multiple rules updates. If you wanted to do Animate Dead in modern times and it had to be an aura I think you could do something like this:

Animate Dead Redux 1B
Enchantment - Aura
Enchant creature or creature card in your graveyard
When ~ enters the battlefield, if it's attached to a creature card in a graveyard, return enchanted card to the battlefield and attach ~ to that creature.
When ~ leaves the battlefield, if it's attached to a creature, exile that creature.

It might have to be a bit more complex than this, but it's simpler than animate dead is because the original has restrictions based on the type of thing it enchants.

Personally if it were me I would probably just make it a non-aura enchantment and use a special counter to track the creature you're reanimating and buffing, but I don't know if the aura designation has any contextual importance to the card for you.
For Sale: Boots of +2 intellect. Never worn.

User avatar
bravelion83
Survivor. I've survived.
Posts: 2255
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Florence, Italy

Post by bravelion83 » 1 year ago

Thank you very much for not exploiting it. Anyway, it's close, but it's not exactly what I wanted my card to do. I wanted it to require no other creatures to enchant, I wanted it to reanimate the creature itself and then attach itself to it, giving it the bonus, and all without the help of any other creature and with an exile clause to prevent unwanted loops. Essentially, I wanted it to work on an empty battlefield too. Breath of Pyre can't even be cast on an empty battlefield.

I promised more details tonight, and here they are:
RattingRots wrote:
1 year ago
I realize it wasn't quite the same - more of just a riff on the concept.
Yeah, also because if I wanted to do the same, I would have just submitted Animate Dead. :)
You know the rules way better than me,
Thank you very much, you have no idea how much. This is a huge compliment from my point of view, and I'm passing a bad period in these days with my mental health issues that a few people around here know about (I don't think you do, but obviously this is not the right place and time for that). Sometimes it feels to me that there is nothing I can do well. Sometimes the thought of surrendering shows up, but no! I won't! See Leo? There is something you can do well, and other people tell you. You just have to listen, and to trust. Yeah, brain. You're right.
but I think you could make an aura that does exactly what you want and isn't quite as wordy as animate dead.
Probably. I thought Reanimate with Fire was it, but it clearly wasn't. Maybe one day I will try again, but not until the end of this year at least. Only 9 days left... how fast is the endless march of time. But as a chemist myself, I know very well the consequences of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. But I digress, just as usual...
Animate Dead Redux 1B
Enchantment - Aura
Enchant creature or creature card in your graveyard
When ~ enters the battlefield, if it's attached to a creature card in a graveyard, return enchanted card to the battlefield and attach ~ to that creature.
When ~ leaves the battlefield, if it's attached to a creature, exile that creature.

It might have to be a bit more complex than this, but it's simpler than animate dead is because the original has restrictions based on the type of thing it enchants.
I feel like you've answered yourself here. It's certainly better than Animate Dead, but is that card really worth the still complicated text, and probably rules interactions too? I feel like it's not worthy anyway.
RattingRots wrote:
1 year ago
Personally if it were me I would probably just make it a non-aura enchantment and use a special counter to track the creature you're reanimating and buffing, but I don't know if the aura designation has any contextual importance to the card for you.
Reanimate with Fire was an Aura just to distinguish itself from the many instants and sorceries that also do reanimation. It's not that important. It was to try to make it more original. For now, this is not part of any set of mine, so there are no restrictions from that point of view. It didn't have to necessarily be an Aura. I made it one both for originality and piggybacking, but being an Aura was not a hard requirement. More like something that would have been nice if it had worked.
My CCCG Resume (Updated on September 28th 2021)
Show
Blue means it was on MTGSalvation. Green means it was here on MTGNexus.
MCC - Winner (6): Oct 2014, Apr Nov 2017, Jan 2018, Apr Jun 2019 || Host (21): Dec 2014, Apr Jul Aug Dec 2015, Mar Jul Aug Oct 2016, Feb Jul 2017, Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last ever on MTGSalvation), Aug 2019 (first ever on MTGNexus) Oct 2019, Jan Jun 2020 Apr Oct 2021 || Judge (47): every month from Nov 2014 to Nov 2016 except Oct 2015, every month from Feb to Jul 2017 except Apr 2017, then Oct 2017, May Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last ever on MTGSalvation), every month from Aug 2019 (first ever on MTGNexus) to Feb 2020, May Jun 2020, Mar Apr Sep Oct 2021
CCL - Winner (4): Jul 2016 (tied with Flatline), May 2017, Jul 2019 (last ever on MTGSalvation), Jun 2021 (tied with slimytrout) || Host (5): Feb 2015, Mar Apr May Jun 2016
DCC - Winner (1): Mar 2015 (tied with Piar) || Host (5): May Oct 2015, Jan 2016, Jun Sep 2021
My projects (Updated on June 14th 2019)
Show
All on MTGSalvation for now. See this Blogger post.
Author of the MCC Guidelines and FAQ.

User avatar
RattingRots
Pathological Scryer
Posts: 445
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by RattingRots » 1 year ago

Legend wrote:
1 year ago
HM: Rat I have an XY card in my most recent set. I realized upon seeing Formula that maybe there's room in it for a couple more XY effects. Formula is an awesome mechanic! In fact, you've designed quite a few awesome cards with novel effects this month.
Thanks, I appreciate it. I do really like my idea, though I think for a "normal" standard legal set, it would take a lot of work to get something like formula right - I think because of the high number of modes, it's probably similar in complexity to something like proliferate or energy, but doesn't synergize easily with other things going on in a set. If it's a mechanic that would be at common in a standard-legal set, I think the biggest challenge would be coming up with cards at common that are fairly straightforward as far as picking modes. It might work better if it's nearly exclusively used at higher rarities, or if it was in a more offbeat set/environment like Battlebond or Archenemy. It would definitely be a fun challenge.
For Sale: Boots of +2 intellect. Never worn.

slimytrout
Posts: 1192
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by slimytrout » 1 year ago

Yeah, I like the mechanic idea, but I don't think it could realistically be made to work at common (the main reason why I didn't vote for yesterday's card). Even X spells are pretty unusual at common (only 2 in pioneer-legal sets, as far as I can tell: Slime Molding and Syncopate), so I think there would be serious red flags on common spells that used both X and Y.

P.S. I do think it needs to say "nonnegative number," since otherwise you'll have people saying "oh, I'll deal 20 damage and scry -16" or the like.
Last edited by slimytrout 1 year ago, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
RattingRots
Pathological Scryer
Posts: 445
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by RattingRots » 1 year ago

I was actually curious if "nonnegative" is necessary in the rules, but honestly either way it should probably be in there to prevent ambiguity.
For Sale: Boots of +2 intellect. Never worn.

slimytrout
Posts: 1192
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by slimytrout » 1 year ago

Yeah, I didn't mean that people would actually be allowed to do that, since of course the rules of the mechanic would be written to forbid it if they don't already, but I can just imagine a 13-year-old at FNM insisting to me that he should be allowed to choose whatever numbers he wants if they add up to 4.

Legend
Aethernaut
Posts: 733
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Eternity

Post by Legend » 1 year ago

RattingRots wrote:
1 year ago
I was actually curious if "nonnegative" is necessary in the rules, but honestly either way it should probably be in there to prevent ambiguity.
In Magic, only p/t can be negative. Other numbers, variables, etc, can't be negative. They simply don't need to be.

Formula N (Choose values for X and Y that total N.)
“Comboing in Commander is like dunking on a seven foot hoop.” – Dana Roach

“Making a deck that other people want to play against – that’s Commander.” – Gavin Duggan

"I want my brain to win games, not my cards." – Sheldon Menery

User avatar
bravelion83
Survivor. I've survived.
Posts: 2255
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Florence, Italy

Post by bravelion83 » 1 year ago

I'll post this here too.
bravelion83 wrote:
1 year ago
Flatline wrote:
1 year ago
Perhaps someone else would like to take my spot in February?
Flatline I can do it. Now that I'm unemployed I can be back to hosting this too as I once did. In February I'd certainly be able to do it. Then we'll see. If you remember, I left the host rotation because I had got a job in the meantime. Now I don't have such "problems" anymore...
My CCCG Resume (Updated on September 28th 2021)
Show
Blue means it was on MTGSalvation. Green means it was here on MTGNexus.
MCC - Winner (6): Oct 2014, Apr Nov 2017, Jan 2018, Apr Jun 2019 || Host (21): Dec 2014, Apr Jul Aug Dec 2015, Mar Jul Aug Oct 2016, Feb Jul 2017, Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last ever on MTGSalvation), Aug 2019 (first ever on MTGNexus) Oct 2019, Jan Jun 2020 Apr Oct 2021 || Judge (47): every month from Nov 2014 to Nov 2016 except Oct 2015, every month from Feb to Jul 2017 except Apr 2017, then Oct 2017, May Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last ever on MTGSalvation), every month from Aug 2019 (first ever on MTGNexus) to Feb 2020, May Jun 2020, Mar Apr Sep Oct 2021
CCL - Winner (4): Jul 2016 (tied with Flatline), May 2017, Jul 2019 (last ever on MTGSalvation), Jun 2021 (tied with slimytrout) || Host (5): Feb 2015, Mar Apr May Jun 2016
DCC - Winner (1): Mar 2015 (tied with Piar) || Host (5): May Oct 2015, Jan 2016, Jun Sep 2021
My projects (Updated on June 14th 2019)
Show
All on MTGSalvation for now. See this Blogger post.
Author of the MCC Guidelines and FAQ.

slimytrout
Posts: 1192
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by slimytrout » 1 year ago

[mention]Legend[/mention]: Are you planning to include cards that have a payoff for casting divergent spells? If so, I'd encourage you to submit them soon, as I don't currently understand the difference between divergent spells and split cards, other than being less flexible with things like Snapcaster Mage and having weird interactions with Gadwick, the Wizened.

Legend
Aethernaut
Posts: 733
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Eternity

Post by Legend » 1 year ago

slimytrout wrote:
1 year ago
Legend: Are you planning to include cards that have a payoff for casting divergent spells?
Yes. Three of them, plus a hoser.
slimytrout wrote:
1 year ago
If so, I'd encourage you to submit them soon, as I don't currently understand the difference between divergent spells and split cards, other than being less flexible with things like Snapcaster Mage and having weird interactions with Gadwick, the Wizened.
I totally understand that perspective. My reasons for using Diverge instead of split cards are as follows, in order of relevance::

RARITY
I want the mechanic at common, and split cards aren't printed at common in Standard sets.

FLAVOR
I think Diverge has decent science fiction flavor when coupled with the card names and art. The split card frame in-and-of itself is generic and offers no particular flavor. And there aren't enough science fiction idioms with which to season them. (And I refuse to resort to the lazy WordA/Word1 scheme.)

SETTING
Split cards are Ravnica's thing.

DESIGN
I have personally named and designed 30 split cards for 2 completed custom Ravnica sets (during the two-set block era of design). And I didn't wimp out like WotC and use 2 unrelated words that start with the same letter for each side. I used good, old-fashioned idioms for each and every card. That's 30 idioms, 60 top down designs that each fulfilled a unique role in their respective sets. I didn't realize how fundamental they'd be to the sets until it was too late. I literally had to isolate them, "perfect" them, and then restructure the sets around them. They served as the spine of the set skeletons. It was also difficult to find 60 perceptible illustrations for the less-than-half-sized art frames. It was all very challenging (though fulfilling at the time) and time-consuming.

LOGISTICS
When printing the sets for RL drafts, MSE printed the split cards diagonally unless the entire file was set to split card frames. A unique split card only file was required to print them properly. Not a huge deal, but just one more step in an already lengthy process.
Last edited by Legend 1 year ago, edited 9 times in total.
“Comboing in Commander is like dunking on a seven foot hoop.” – Dana Roach

“Making a deck that other people want to play against – that’s Commander.” – Gavin Duggan

"I want my brain to win games, not my cards." – Sheldon Menery

User avatar
Flatline
The Heartbeat of America
Posts: 444
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Someplace Special

Post by Flatline » 1 year ago

bravelion83 wrote:
1 year ago
I'll post this here too.
bravelion83 wrote:
1 year ago
Flatline wrote:
1 year ago
Perhaps someone else would like to take my spot in February?
Flatline I can do it. Now that I'm unemployed I can be back to hosting this too as I once did. In February I'd certainly be able to do it. Then we'll see. If you remember, I left the host rotation because I had got a job in the meantime. Now I don't have such "problems" anymore...
Awesome. I'll feel a lot better knowing the DCC is good hands while I'm gone, and that void won't get stuck posting it every month. As I said, I'm sure I'll be back at some point, and when I return, I'll gladly retake my spot in the rotation if needed.
Card Contest Victories
Show
DCC
Show
(25 Total) - October 2014; December 2014; January 2015; April 2015; June 2015; August 2015; September 2015; November 2015; December 2015(T); January 2016; March 2016(T); April 2016; June 2016; October 2016; December 2016(T); February 2017; April 2017; December 2017; November 2018(T); January 2019; April 2019; June 2019; August 2019; October 2019; March 2020
MCC
Show
(8 Total) - May 2015; May 2016; June 2016; August 2016; October 2016; December 2016; October 2017; May 2019
CCL
Show
(7 Total) - September 2015; October 2015; January 2016; March 2016; April 2016; July 2016(T); March 2019(T)

User avatar
bravelion83
Survivor. I've survived.
Posts: 2255
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Florence, Italy

Post by bravelion83 » 1 year ago

Flatline wrote:
1 year ago
bravelion83 wrote:
1 year ago
I'll post this here too.
bravelion83 wrote:
1 year ago

Flatline I can do it. Now that I'm unemployed I can be back to hosting this too as I once did. In February I'd certainly be able to do it. Then we'll see. If you remember, I left the host rotation because I had got a job in the meantime. Now I don't have such "problems" anymore...
Awesome. I'll feel a lot better knowing the DCC is good hands while I'm gone, and that void won't get stuck posting it every month. As I said, I'm sure I'll be back at some point, and when I return, I'll gladly retake my spot in the rotation if needed.
If [mention]void_nothing[/mention] agrees as moderator, I'm already willing to officially be the host for February.

As for reentering the host rotation fully, I will have to wait March to see because I have a loooot of things that should resolve one way or another in March in real life, so many that you have no idea. For everything regarding the future after March, I will have to wait for it to become the present, and go on "surfing on sight". One thing is for sure: I will not leave this site or any other services I might use on the internet (mainly Discord at this time, I barely use Twitter, mostly just for Maro's polls, and I don't use Facebook or Whatsapp at all anymore). It's the only thing I know about my future after March. For example, I have no idea if I will be able to host April at this moment. But February for sure. Then, maybe we could think about a 3-way rotation like we were doing years ago when we saved the DCC when the historical host disappeared from the site; if you remember it was me, you (Flatline), and a third user I haven't seen here on Nexus yet. But again, I have to wait for March to end before I make such projects. February is no problem. I can do it for sure.



bravelion83 wrote:
1 year ago
void_nothing wrote:
1 year ago
Taking over January, was worried you might have to deal with me hosting this in February too but it looks like we have some people stepping up, which is encouraging.
More than stepping up, returning to do what I once did. I'll take it as a sign that you're fine with me hosting the DCC in February, even if I haven't seen any official messages anywhere so far. Ok, if nobody has any objection I will take over on February 3rd. I guess now it's official. I will try to keep the same time for the daily threads (which means around midnight EST, which is 6 AM CEST).
It appears we'll meet again in February indeed. I've already said in the quotes everything I had to say for now, I just wanted it to be here too (probably its most natural place).
Rithaniel wrote:
1 year ago
I could help with the DCC in February, but I've been inconsistent with posting lately. I might kick up the consistency once college starts up again, though I can't say I'm sure on that.
[mention]Rithaniel[/mention] I only saw this now, while looking for cards up for voting. As I might have some problems in April (actually I don't even know if I will still be in the house I'm living in now by then or I might be waiting to move at right around that time), maybe I could do February where I am 100% free and available, and you do April instead, when you hopefully have sorted your business and I might have problems instead. Something like:

February: me
March: [mention]void_nothing[/mention]
April: you ( [mention]Rithaniel[/mention] )
and then we see from there.

Would this be good to everybody? Yes to me.
My CCCG Resume (Updated on September 28th 2021)
Show
Blue means it was on MTGSalvation. Green means it was here on MTGNexus.
MCC - Winner (6): Oct 2014, Apr Nov 2017, Jan 2018, Apr Jun 2019 || Host (21): Dec 2014, Apr Jul Aug Dec 2015, Mar Jul Aug Oct 2016, Feb Jul 2017, Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last ever on MTGSalvation), Aug 2019 (first ever on MTGNexus) Oct 2019, Jan Jun 2020 Apr Oct 2021 || Judge (47): every month from Nov 2014 to Nov 2016 except Oct 2015, every month from Feb to Jul 2017 except Apr 2017, then Oct 2017, May Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last ever on MTGSalvation), every month from Aug 2019 (first ever on MTGNexus) to Feb 2020, May Jun 2020, Mar Apr Sep Oct 2021
CCL - Winner (4): Jul 2016 (tied with Flatline), May 2017, Jul 2019 (last ever on MTGSalvation), Jun 2021 (tied with slimytrout) || Host (5): Feb 2015, Mar Apr May Jun 2016
DCC - Winner (1): Mar 2015 (tied with Piar) || Host (5): May Oct 2015, Jan 2016, Jun Sep 2021
My projects (Updated on June 14th 2019)
Show
All on MTGSalvation for now. See this Blogger post.
Author of the MCC Guidelines and FAQ.

User avatar
Rithaniel
Posts: 1066
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Rithaniel » 1 year ago

Sure, I can work with that. Gives me plenty of time to be able to see if I will be consistently able to post throughout April.
And a Few Quotes
Show
"Why are numbers beautiful? It's like asking why is Beethoven's Ninth Symphony beautiful. If you don't see why, someone can't tell you. I know numbers are beautiful. If they aren't beautiful, nothing is."
― Paul Erdős

“I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.”
― Stephen Jay Gould

User avatar
Gateways7
Posts: 151
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: they / them

Post by Gateways7 » 1 year ago

Legend wrote:
1 year ago
RARITY
I want the mechanic at common, and split cards aren't printed at common in Standard sets.

FLAVOR
I think Diverge has decent science fiction flavor when coupled with the card names and art. The split card frame in-and-of itself is generic and offers no particular flavor. And there aren't enough science fiction idioms with which to season them. (And I refuse to resort to the lazy WordA/Word1 scheme.)

SETTING
Split cards are Ravnica's thing.

DESIGN
I have personally named and designed 30 split cards for 2 completed custom Ravnica sets (during the two-set block era of design). And I didn't wimp out like WotC and use 2 unrelated words that start with the same letter for each side. I used good, old-fashioned idioms for each and every card. That's 30 idioms, 60 top down designs that each fulfilled a unique role in their respective sets. I didn't realize how fundamental they'd be to the sets until it was too late. I literally had to isolate them, "perfect" them, and then restructure the sets around them. They served as the spine of the set skeletons. It was also difficult to find 60 perceptible illustrations for the less-than-half-sized art frames. It was all very challenging (though fulfilling at the time) and time-consuming.

LOGISTICS
When printing the sets for RL drafts, MSE printed the split cards diagonally unless the entire file was set to split card frames. A unique split card only file was required to print them properly. Not a huge deal, but just one more step in an already lengthy process.
Most of these are reasons that are mostly sticking to precedent, when you could pretty easily make different choices than what Wizards has done. As players have now had access to split cards for many years at this point, you could easily make split cards at common, especially considering it's not a hard mechanic to understand, just an interesting frame. Furthermore, more complex mechanics like Adventures and double-faced cards have been at common, so this wouldn't be a problem. I don't think the word "Diverge" offers up much flavor, while split cards are artistically interesting and having two pieces of artwork rather than one ups the amount of flavor in the card. In terms of the setting, split cards are not just Ravnica's thing, they were present in Invasion block, Timespiraled block, Amonkhet block, arguably Throne of Eldraine, and many other supplemental products. Finally, you don't have to adhere to Wizard's naming scheme for double-faced cards, you literally can name them whatever you want to - you don't even have to have them be WordA // Word1, you could have multi-word names, they would fit. (While your point about logistics is fair, it's not a huge deal, as you said yourself.)

While I think divergent is a cool mechanic and I'm not asking you to change it, I just don't know if the reasons listed here are worth getting rid of split cards.

User avatar
bravelion83
Survivor. I've survived.
Posts: 2255
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Florence, Italy

Post by bravelion83 » 1 year ago

Rithaniel wrote:
1 year ago
Sure, I can work with that. Gives me plenty of time to be able to see if I will be consistently able to post throughout April.
Good, then if void_nothing agrees (but nothing should change to them, they would have had to host March anyway), I'd say that's our plan. Thank you.
My CCCG Resume (Updated on September 28th 2021)
Show
Blue means it was on MTGSalvation. Green means it was here on MTGNexus.
MCC - Winner (6): Oct 2014, Apr Nov 2017, Jan 2018, Apr Jun 2019 || Host (21): Dec 2014, Apr Jul Aug Dec 2015, Mar Jul Aug Oct 2016, Feb Jul 2017, Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last ever on MTGSalvation), Aug 2019 (first ever on MTGNexus) Oct 2019, Jan Jun 2020 Apr Oct 2021 || Judge (47): every month from Nov 2014 to Nov 2016 except Oct 2015, every month from Feb to Jul 2017 except Apr 2017, then Oct 2017, May Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last ever on MTGSalvation), every month from Aug 2019 (first ever on MTGNexus) to Feb 2020, May Jun 2020, Mar Apr Sep Oct 2021
CCL - Winner (4): Jul 2016 (tied with Flatline), May 2017, Jul 2019 (last ever on MTGSalvation), Jun 2021 (tied with slimytrout) || Host (5): Feb 2015, Mar Apr May Jun 2016
DCC - Winner (1): Mar 2015 (tied with Piar) || Host (5): May Oct 2015, Jan 2016, Jun Sep 2021
My projects (Updated on June 14th 2019)
Show
All on MTGSalvation for now. See this Blogger post.
Author of the MCC Guidelines and FAQ.

Legend
Aethernaut
Posts: 733
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Eternity

Post by Legend » 1 year ago

Gateways7 wrote:
1 year ago
While I think divergent is a cool mechanic and I'm not asking you to change it...
Thank you and thanks for the reply!
Gateways7 wrote:
1 year ago
...I just don't know if the reasons listed here are worth getting rid of split cards.
You may be right. Let's talk about it...
Gateways7 wrote:
1 year ago
Most of these are reasons that are mostly sticking to precedent, when you could pretty easily make different choices than what Wizards has done.
Sticking to precedent lends a sense of authenticity to custom sets imo. Custom innovations are accentuated by a backdrop of the familiar, like cut diamonds on black velvet. I've grown reticent to eschew precedents, such as rarity conventions, for the sake of convenience or in the name of innovation. (Not to imply that you aren't.)
Gateways7 wrote:
1 year ago
As players have now had access to split cards for many years at this point, you could easily make split cards at common, especially considering it's not a hard mechanic to understand, just an interesting frame.
I wasn't always so reticent to do so. 10/30 of my custom split cards were commons. But this was prior to Guilds and Allegiences, neither of which contain common split cards. The fact that there has never been a common split card in a standard set, not even in the two most recent sets that contain them (which are so recent they're still in standard), speaks volumes to me.
Gateways7 wrote:
1 year ago
Furthermore, more complex mechanics like Adventures and double-faced cards have been at common, so this wouldn't be a problem.
I also think that the adventure process is more complex than the functional aspects of split cards. Transform, on the other hand, is simpler than even some evergreen mechanics. Though sometimes its triggers or other peripheral elements can make it seem complex. I'm not sure why Adventures (and DFCs) are acceptable at common but split cards are not. Perhaps because of the text orientation?
Gateways7 wrote:
1 year ago
I don't think the word "Diverge" offers up much flavor...
I don't disagree. That's why I said "I think Diverge has decent science fiction flavor when coupled with the card names and art [and flavor text]." "Divergent" is also the title of a fairly recent, well known series of science fiction books/movies.
Gateways7 wrote:
1 year ago
...split cards are artistically interesting and having two pieces of artwork rather than one ups the amount of flavor in the card.
The art is rather less interesting imo when it's difficult to make out due to being so small, especially when printed from MSE, where it isn't as crisp as actual Magic card art (a feature of MSE intended to prevent counterfeiting). I also don't have the benefit of an art department to produce ideal images. Split cards necessitate 15 additional images (per set) which is no small task. Seriously, finding ~250 suitable images that will fit into a card frame is already daunting enough.
Gateways7 wrote:
1 year ago
In terms of the setting, split cards are not just Ravnica's thing, they were present in Invasion block, Timespiraled block, Amonkhet block, arguably Throne of Eldraine...
Split cards debuted in Invasion but weren't given a home in Dominaria and aren't part of its identity (despite being a novelty of the block for those of us who remember those days). Time Spiral got a little bit of everything. Split cards were just one of a myriad of cameos. Cards with Aftermath aren't split cards, despite the (hideous) similar frame, and are actually more akin to cards with flashback. Nor are Adventures. And of these, only Adventures have been printed at common.
Gateways7 wrote:
1 year ago
Finally, you don't have to adhere to Wizard's naming scheme for [split] cards, you literally can name them whatever you want to - you don't even have to have them be WordA // Word1, you could have multi-word names, they would fit.
True. But personally, I just don't want to do that because I think doing so derives them of their characteristic charm.
“Comboing in Commander is like dunking on a seven foot hoop.” – Dana Roach

“Making a deck that other people want to play against – that’s Commander.” – Gavin Duggan

"I want my brain to win games, not my cards." – Sheldon Menery

slimytrout
Posts: 1192
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by slimytrout » 1 year ago

I think that your most recent entry (Death Out of Focus) is an ideal use of Divergent over split cards (although it was a little on the weak side, which was why I didn't vote for it). I say this because the two "modes" of the card target the same thing, reinforcing the fact that this is one card that has two uses, something that is not captured well by split cards.

slimytrout
Posts: 1192
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by slimytrout » 1 year ago

RattingRots wrote:
1 year ago
slimytrout (I like Lurk, although I would separate the cost from the keyworded mechanic)
Just curious to hear further thoughts on this. I chose to do it that way because of morph, which uses that structure, but do you think that it would be better as:

Cavern Horror 3BB
Creature – Horror (U)
Menace
Lurk (You may cast this card face down as a 2/2 creature for 3.)
If an opponent is attacking you with exactly one creature, you may turn Cavern Horror face up by paying BB. If you do, that player sacrifices a creature attacking you.
4/4

Or something else that I haven't thought of?

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Contests & Games”