It is currently Sun Jul 25, 2021 10:09 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 169 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2021 6:34 pm 
Offline
YMtC Champ '14
YMTC Pro Tour Champion
User avatar

Joined: Jun 04, 2014
Posts: 13648
Location: Freedom
Preferred Pronoun Set: they
as always feel free to fight me if you think I'm wrong.

Round 5

it's time for our final allied pair, Gruul! make a draft archetype, a rare that plays into it, a uncommon that encourages it, and then a common and a common that support it. feel free to include any design notes you think are relevant.

you have one week from when this post was made.

:duel:

_________________
I tend to agree with Razor.

The BLOCK I'm currently pretending I'll finish: Fleets Of Ossia (complete!) | Wavebreak (complete!) | The Second Flood (in progress!)
Razorborne and friends teach music theory to chumps like you: 12tone


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2021 7:25 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Mar 09, 2015
Posts: 2058
Ah yeah I guess I built the Imp kinda for a black suicide aggro style deck but the rest are grindier, even the shade which is an attacker but a 6-mana 3/5 flier which is kinda grindy still. And yes that was the purpose of the Flash, so you can hold up mana for your counters and then if you don't use them you can bring this in before you phase in to get a nice drain. That's also two rounds in a row I had a 5/5 Common and a 1/5 Common lol


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2021 7:41 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 05, 2014
Posts: 1486
Identity: Male
Preferred Pronoun Set: he/him/his/his/himself
Archetype: First Spell Matters

Blast Bolt
Sorcery (C)
~ deals 3 damage to target creature or planeswalker. If this is the first spell you cast this turn, ~ deals 4 damage to that target instead.

Eager Visionary
Creature - Elf Shaman (C)
When ~ enters the battlefield, if it was the first spell you cast this turn, draw a card.
[1/3]

Reclaim the Wilderness
Sorcery (U)
Gain control of target land you don't control.
Whenever you cast your first spell each turn, you may pay . If you do, return ~ from your graveyard to your hand.

Enraged Kavu
Creature - Beast (R)
Haste, Hexproof, Trample
Whenever you cast a spell, if it is the first spell you cast this turn, put a +1/+1 counter on ~. Otherwise, ~ deals 1 damage to itself.
[3/2]

_________________
Image


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2021 7:50 pm 
Offline
Conqueror of Eldangard
User avatar

Joined: Sep 25, 2013
Posts: 12812
Location: Kamloops, BC
Identity: Male
Oops, yeah the tribal card should have been for assassins. I went back and forth on it, but apparently wasn't thoroughly forth about it.
Edit- Oh sweet I won! I was pretty happy with my submission but I wasn't that confident. In your faces [list of all fellow contenders].

_________________
Cato wrote:
CotW is a method for ranking cards in increasing order of printability.

*"To YMTC it up" means to design cards that have value mostly from a design perspective. i.e. you would put them in a case under glass in your living room and visitors could remark upon the wonderful design principles, with nobody ever worring if the cards are annoying/pointless/confusing in actual play

TPrizesW
TPortfolioW


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2021 8:44 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Jun 03, 2014
Posts: 1322
There was a version with clues but I don't think any of my cards had treasure

_________________
Currently Playing
Genshin Impact
Guilty Gear Strive


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2021 8:46 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 24, 2013
Posts: 7977
Fertilize - :2::g:
Instant (C)
You gain 5 life if there's an instant or sorcery card in your graveyard.
You gain 5 life if there's a creature card in your graveyard.


Earth Shaman - :1::r:
Creature - Goblin Shaman (C)
Sacrifice ~: Add :r::r:. Spend this mana only to cast instant or sorcery spells.
2/1


Transmit - :r::g:
Sorcery (U)
~ deals 3 damage to any target if there's an instant or sorcery card in your graveyard.
Create a 3/3 green Giant creature token if there's a creature card in your graveyard.


Firespeaker - :1::r::g:
Creature - Troll Shaman (R)
Whenever ~ attacks, if there's an instant or sorcery card in your graveyard, target creature can't block this turn.
Whenever ~ attacks, if there's a creature card in your graveyard, put two +1/+1 counters on ~.
1/1


Last edited by Flopfoot on Fri Jul 23, 2021 3:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2021 9:30 pm 
Offline
YMtC Champ '14
YMTC Pro Tour Champion
User avatar

Joined: Jun 04, 2014
Posts: 13648
Location: Freedom
Preferred Pronoun Set: they
There was a version with clues but I don't think any of my cards had treasure

oh yeah I meant clues. I liked the one with clues. I still like this one too though.

:duel:

_________________
I tend to agree with Razor.

The BLOCK I'm currently pretending I'll finish: Fleets Of Ossia (complete!) | Wavebreak (complete!) | The Second Flood (in progress!)
Razorborne and friends teach music theory to chumps like you: 12tone


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2021 12:08 am 
Offline
Conqueror of Eldangard
User avatar

Joined: Sep 25, 2013
Posts: 12812
Location: Kamloops, BC
Identity: Male
Aw man, I used up the archetype I was going to enter for for . At the time seemed so far away...
Treasure seems like a good fit for but it's been done, and recently at that.
Kind of wanted to do a "theme" that was just "these 2/3 cards specifically support each other. Try to draft them" but that seems better as a little extra spice and not a draft archetype. Maybe if the cards had a Squadron Hawk thing going on? Or the 'ol +1 more of thing for each of these things in your graveyard trick but the commons count each other? Seems doable, but would it have a shot at winning?
I guess there's always tribal, but I'd need to find a new spin on it, which basically puts me back to square 1. Tribal effects that only kick in with a certain amount of creatures? Maybe an A and B dual tribe dealie where A boosts B and vice versa?
Activated abilities matter is a thing I've been stewing on, but it seems best with in it. Blue gets to have weird interactions with costs and abilities, even if I suspect has more activated abilities.

Watch this space.

Goblins & Wolves BFFs
Tribal, now with 2 tribes! I messed around with the idea of Horses and knights tribal before, but horses are lame and it wouldn't work in RG anyway.
Why split tribes?
Why wolves and goblins? Tolkien mostly.

R common



G common
Charging Worg
Creature - Wolf
Trample
When ~ enters the battlefield, you may have target goblin get +2/+2 and gain trample until end of turn.
2/2

RG uncommon
Tracker Team
Creature - Goblin Wolf


RG rare

_________________
Cato wrote:
CotW is a method for ranking cards in increasing order of printability.

*"To YMTC it up" means to design cards that have value mostly from a design perspective. i.e. you would put them in a case under glass in your living room and visitors could remark upon the wonderful design principles, with nobody ever worring if the cards are annoying/pointless/confusing in actual play

TPrizesW
TPortfolioW


Last edited by TPmanW on Fri Jul 23, 2021 11:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2021 5:07 am 
Offline
YMtC Champ '11
YMtC Pro Tour Champion
YMtC Idol Winner
User avatar

Joined: Sep 23, 2013
Posts: 10214
Preferred Pronoun Set: he/him/my/mine/himself
razorborne wrote:
as always feel free to fight me if you think I'm wrong.

I will.

UB gives you access to a lot of card filtering and tutors, so I think it's pretty suitable in going for the diversity approach, in addition to it inherently being the most interesting application for it imo. I don't think it's that difficult to support, you have one example in the uncommon for dual typing, and I would have made a split card if the naming scheme of them wasn't so obnoxiously difficult. A normal raise dead card counts as effectively both a sorcery and a creature, plus the aforementioned card filtering. I came up with this mechanic specifically because I want to play with it in a draft environment, as it adds another layer of evaluation during the picking phase, and adds a lot of decision making during play by evaluating the value of playing your cards normally as opposed to lining them up for sequences.

I haven't designed my rares around being signposts, hence it not being one. The OP calls for a rare that "pays off" or "plays into" the archetype, so I've been using it as a way to explore more complex approaches. If there's an expectation that they're supposed to serve as signposts or that "does this make me want to prioritize drafting the commons?" should be judged from the place of someone uninformed instead of an objective sense, then I think it should have been communicated more clearly.

I don't understand your metric for deciding whether a card is interesting or not and I'm finding it increasingly frustrating. I'm not greatly fond of bringing other people's submissions into this conversation, but I need some form of comparison. So for instance, I don't see why my black common is "unexciting", but Cato's Author of Shadows is a clever use of the mechanic. ELC's "cute" Repeal got a 3/5, while my white common last round got 1 point. Is that sensible? How is it a more interesting card? How does it do a better job of demonstrating the viability of the theme?

_________________
[Warchief] Custom EDH Project
you're like the kind of person who would cast Necropotence irl


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2021 5:53 am 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 05, 2014
Posts: 1486
Identity: Male
Preferred Pronoun Set: he/him/his/his/himself
... Im not sure if you want to base your design decisions around what I get for scores; I really havent been consistent this contest aside from getting low total grades.

_________________
Image


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2021 8:09 am 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 23, 2013
Posts: 7799
Identity: Spambot
Preferred Pronoun Set: 0, 1
I think I've been trying to design cards for this contest with a very different philosophy than the one Razor is using to judge them. I saw the point of this contest as a set/archetype design contest, where the goal is to create an archetype and make cards that enable it and illustrate how the archetype will (generally) work. Almost any archetype has some very simple cards, especially at common, that don't do anything out of the box, but do create the archetype and its character, even if they aren't flashy on an individual level. It feels like every time I post a common that's like, "this is what most of the commons in the archetype will look like", I get points deducted.

_________________
Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2021 8:48 am 
Offline
YMtC Idol Winner
User avatar

Joined: Sep 22, 2013
Posts: 300
Location: Yavimaya
Interesting, I thought DFCs was actually way better than just gaining text - less memory issues, and opens up more design space for the "completed" versions of things (like the ability to spend counters on the Silverwing). I left the bit about counters in the reminder text even though that's obvious because I feel like that's the sort of thing WotC'd do these days - a quick answer to what would probably be a common question among less enfranchised players.

Ah well, UB is dumb anyway. Let us proceed with the hunt! This one is all about big bad predators eating up all your opponent's creatures (read: having your creatures deal damage to their creatures).

A rare that insures you've got plenty of chances to eat:

Domain of the Apex
Enchantment (R)
Whenever a creature enters the battlefield, it's controller may have it fight target creature of their choice.
: Target creature you control gets +1/+1 until end of turn.

The uncommon signals the theme by ensuring you've got some tasty morsels to gobble up (while still being a fine pump spell if played solo). You might say that they can just never block with the Prey, but that's part of the payoff for the archetype. I imagine the set has less sacrifice effects to match.

Flush Out
Sorcery (U)
Each opponent creates three 0/1 green Prey creature tokens with "When this dies, put a +1/+1 counter on each creature that dealt damage to it this turn."
Up to one target creature you control gets +2/+2, gains trample, and must be blocked by exactly one creature this turn if able.

For commons, fight effects and Fall of the Hammer type things are all helpful. You also just need some monsters.

Maul
Instant (C)
Target creature you control deals 3 damage to target creature you don't control. When a creature dealt damage this way dies this turn, creatures you control gain trample until end of turn.

Kavu Hunter
Creature - Beast (C)
When Kavu Hunter enters the battlefield, each opponent creates a 0/1 green Prey creature token with "When this dies, put a +1/+1 counter on each creature that dealt damage to it this turn."
3/3

_________________


Last edited by Temjen on Wed Jul 21, 2021 11:35 am, edited 3 times in total.

Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2021 10:30 am 
Offline
YMtC Champ '14
YMTC Pro Tour Champion
User avatar

Joined: Jun 04, 2014
Posts: 13648
Location: Freedom
Preferred Pronoun Set: they
Mown wrote:
UB gives you access to a lot of card filtering and tutors, so I think it's pretty suitable in going for the diversity approach, in addition to it inherently being the most interesting application for it imo. I don't think it's that difficult to support, you have one example in the uncommon for dual typing, and I would have made a split card if the naming scheme of them wasn't so obnoxiously difficult. A normal raise dead card counts as effectively both a sorcery and a creature, plus the aforementioned card filtering. I came up with this mechanic specifically because I want to play with it in a draft environment, as it adds another layer of evaluation during the picking phase, and adds a lot of decision making during play by evaluating the value of playing your cards normally as opposed to lining them up for sequences.
this is all fair, and I agree a general tarmogoyf theme is a solid take for . my issue is with trying to line that theme up around casting spells. many limited games spend a significant portion of their runtime in topdeck mode, where sequence is irrelevant, and even if I do have two spells to cast, lining up their sequencing is not guaranteed. I spent a lot of time drafting ZNR and even the best Party decks can have a difficult time getting the right types at the right time. (even with support like stonework packbeast, which is much more effective at providing the relevant diversity than anything Sequence has access to.) here, you have that same problem except with more types (I'm assuming no planeswalker or land sequence, but that still leaves you with 5) and less flexibility in how you deploy them. another useful comparison is the relatively common theme of "run instant/sorcery spells", and even those can be hard to reach critical mass on effectively, even though they're asking for much less specific (and much less varied) things. the ideal of a tarmogoyf deck in the colors with the most filtering is a nice one, but this form of it would require a pretty extreme amount of support to even realistically approach viability.

Mown wrote:
I haven't designed my rares around being signposts, hence it not being one. The OP calls for a rare that "pays off" or "plays into" the archetype, so I've been using it as a way to explore more complex approaches. If there's an expectation that they're supposed to serve as signposts or that "does this make me want to prioritize drafting the commons?" should be judged from the place of someone uninformed instead of an objective sense, then I think it should have been communicated more clearly.
I'm not really sure how to communicate my desire for effective signposts more clearly than putting it in the title of the contest, referring in the OP to "a secondary set of rare signposts to further reinforce the theme", and making supporting the commons one of the three explicit judging criteria, but to be clear I am open to the possibility of more explorational rares as long as once they're in my card pool I'm more likely to want to draft into the archetype. I'm not convinced Anticipation does that: it's much more effective support for an activated-abilities theme or something else that provides me with alternative mana sinks for all the mana I'm wasting not casting spells. if you'd given me something, anything, to do with that extra mana, I think the card would've worked better, but instead you tied a "please don't cast spells" rare to a keyword that explicitly and only cared about me casting spells.

Mown wrote:
So for instance, I don't see why my black common is "unexciting", but Cato's Author of Shadows is a clever use of the mechanic.
didn't I give your black common a 4? I feel like maybe you're reading too far into my comment, given that I still gave the card the second-best score I possibly could've. my point was it was an effective workhorse card in the context of the theme. I'll try to be clearer on that next time.

Mown wrote:
ELC's "cute" Repeal got a 3/5, while my white common last round got 1 point. Is that sensible? How is it a more interesting card? How does it do a better job of demonstrating the viability of the theme?
I'm not sure what specific comparison exists between those two cards, but I do think there's a difference between doing a cute play on a common effect and just taking your keyword and attaching it to an evergreen keyword. in retrospect I think I probably didn't give your white common enough credit for the fact that lifelink does play differently on different bodies, but I still don't find it to be a particularly interesting card. it's hopeful eidolon but backwards.

Cato wrote:
I think I've been trying to design cards for this contest with a very different philosophy than the one Razor is using to judge them. I saw the point of this contest as a set/archetype design contest, where the goal is to create an archetype and make cards that enable it and illustrate how the archetype will (generally) work. Almost any archetype has some very simple cards, especially at common, that don't do anything out of the box, but do create the archetype and its character, even if they aren't flashy on an individual level. It feels like every time I post a common that's like, "this is what most of the commons in the archetype will look like", I get points deducted.
this is fair, and it's something I'll try to keep in mind going forward, but as a counterpoint I'd argue that, if your archetype is clear and good, I can probably figure out what most of the commons in it will look like already. a lot of what I'm looking for in the commons is how you're going to solve things like viability problems, or, if there aren't any, how you're going to develop the mechanic in interesting ways. that's one of the reasons I liked your Dumpster Diver so much: it did a burgle thing, but in a way that fundamentally reframed what burgle could do. Scamp, on the other hand, had the exact same trigger condition, but a less interesting version of the effect. if Diver had been something different I think I might've given Scamp a 3, but the two felt really redundant next to each other.

also I'm not sure your philosophy is that different from mine, you've podiumed in half the rounds so far.

Temjen wrote:
Interesting, I thought DFCs was actually way better than just gaining text - less memory issues, and opens up more design space for the "completed" versions of things (like the ability to spend counters on the Silverwing).
I think for me the thing is that the DFC technology is such a significant part of any card that has it that they all just wind up feeling homogenous unless you're doing something specifically interesting in the space. the question becomes less "what does your mechanic do" and more "how does your mechanic transform" and that highlights some of the issues with the mechanic. I think the constraint of a single text box would've forced more interesting and cohesive cards. (I also think TDFCs are more interesting when they can transform back, but that's just me.) anyway I didn't really take many points off for this point, it was just a thing I wanted to comment on 'cause I liked your previous version better.

:duel:

_________________
I tend to agree with Razor.

The BLOCK I'm currently pretending I'll finish: Fleets Of Ossia (complete!) | Wavebreak (complete!) | The Second Flood (in progress!)
Razorborne and friends teach music theory to chumps like you: 12tone


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2021 2:34 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 23, 2013
Posts: 7799
Identity: Spambot
Preferred Pronoun Set: 0, 1
I wanted burgling to be mostly from your opponent's library, with a handful of niche cards that burgled from elsewhere. That's what I was trying to illustrate. Paradoxically, we're kinda incentivized by the grading system to make the kind of cards that are the least representative of the way the mechanic would actually exist at common, since most commons with any given mechanic are french vanilla, and you don't like those very much. I think this contest would almost be easier if we got to make more cards.

_________________
Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2021 6:51 pm 
Offline
YMtC Champ '14
YMTC Pro Tour Champion
User avatar

Joined: Jun 04, 2014
Posts: 13648
Location: Freedom
Preferred Pronoun Set: they
Cato wrote:
I wanted burgling to be mostly from your opponent's library, with a handful of niche cards that burgled from elsewhere. That's what I was trying to illustrate. Paradoxically, we're kinda incentivized by the grading system to make the kind of cards that are the least representative of the way the mechanic would actually exist at common, since most commons with any given mechanic are french vanilla, and you don't like those very much. I think this contest would almost be easier if we got to make more cards.

sure, but like if your theme is "2/2s matter" I don't need you to show me glory seeker, y'know?

on Scamp specifically, my point has nothing to do with it burgling from the library, I agree that's the right thing to do with the card. it's just a little redundant to see it next to a black common with exactly the same trigger condition when there were other avenues you could've explored. off the top of my head:

Improvised Heist-
Sorcery
Burgle the top card of target player's library.
Draw a card.

boom, divination variant. different spin on the mechanic that still represents the keyword's intended function without being just a zone-swapped version of the other common. not saying this was the best possible option, but at least it shows the keyword can exist on cards that aren't just etb-trigger french vanilla creatures.

:duel:

_________________
I tend to agree with Razor.

The BLOCK I'm currently pretending I'll finish: Fleets Of Ossia (complete!) | Wavebreak (complete!) | The Second Flood (in progress!)
Razorborne and friends teach music theory to chumps like you: 12tone


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2021 6:55 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Mar 09, 2015
Posts: 2058
Burgle doesn't even look like a real word


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2021 7:02 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Jun 03, 2014
Posts: 1322
Workspace

_________________
Currently Playing
Genshin Impact
Guilty Gear Strive


Last edited by Tekkahedron on Fri Jul 23, 2021 7:27 am, edited 6 times in total.

Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2021 7:32 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 22, 2013
Posts: 1040
the only thing I didn't like about Dumpster Diver is that it hardly feels like a 'burglary' if you're stealing from your opponent's graveyard - I feel like the name only fits the mechanic if you're taking cards from the opponent's library or hand. but that is an extremely minor thing

_________________
What does B^) mean?


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2021 10:43 pm 
Offline
YMtC Champ '12
User avatar

Joined: Sep 23, 2013
Posts: 4782
Location: California
razorborne wrote:
does it fit the colors?: I get your argument about being the enemy of green, but paying long-term growth for short-term gains is way more than . I'd probably make this 'cause then you can print things like explore that synergize with it, but would be plausible. , though, feels very wrong.

Yeah, I worried that making this non-green was a stretch. When I did tunnels for , I had the same worries, but I felt it was easily justifiable. Land-plays is much trickier, especially since the easiest way to abuse it is Exploration effects. You're right about the play-style not quite matching blue's traditional area of expertise. In fact, blue probably like's land drops second-most of the colors. But the short-term gains you spoke of are only short-term if the ability granted is also short-term. Hazardous Spill works that way; Lobby doesn't. I realize that lands naturally build up resources, something blue loves, but if the designs use those land plays for repeatable resources (like, say, creature tokens), then the focus is as long-term as much else that blue does. So, I agree with your assessment, but not with the implication on what cards blue would get in this setting.

razorborne wrote:
is it novel?: Rush why do you do this to me. (yes, very novel. and honestly, even though I'm not always grading them highly, I do respect your commitment to swinging for the fences every round.)

I don't know that I intended it from the onset, but I've also been enjoying going all-in on something outrageous. Hopefully I'll strike gold one of these rounds.

razorborne wrote:
is it fun?: I feel like they talked about trying some version of this back in the original Zendikar and it turns out encouraging players to hamstring their resource development leads to not very fun outcomes. maybe it's interesting if you're playing optimally, but when players are trying out the set they're gonna wind up shooting themselves in the foot a lot with this mechanic. like, consider how easy it is to back yourself into a corner by misplaying Lobby.

I mentioned this in my raz-rant when discussing in medias res (that mechanic name being the clear pearl of the whole rant), but I agree it holds true for land-plays: this mechanic would never work. I agree it would be unfun, similar to the frustrations players had in Odyssey when the game told them "casting spells is worse than just discarding cards." But maybe... just maybe... it's fun for a small section of Spikes?

razorborne wrote:
can it be a full theme?: um... kinda, but since you only get one land play per turn most of the time, and isn't gonna get a lot of explore stuff to juice that number, each :land: card you run is gonna be vying for a very limited resource pool. all that said, and I know I was pretty harsh on this theme, but I do really like the flavor.
Grade: 2/10

I imagine extra land plays would be spread into black and blue, but in weird ways. (Like with Field Surveyor.) That said, the theme's credit is entirely my girlfriend's, so I'll give her the 2 points and take the 0/10 that remains.

razorborne wrote:
Field Surveyor
does it support the theme?: it gives you a second land drop to pay, which the deck needs. being so expensive makes it hard to justify, since the deck will likely be skipping some land drops along the way, though.
is it interesting?: I think it's a neat way of giving blue explore without giving it any actual ramp.
is it common?: it's pushing the boundaries on color appropriateness but if the set needs it I think it can be.
Grade: 4/5

Two considerations I made to changing this card: the first was to lower it to 5 mana instead of 6. It might make sense given the theme, but I decided I wanted a card that encouraged players to get to a land threshold before skipping their land plays. The second consideration was returning multiple lands and giving multiple plays. In essence, this mechanic was similar to land untapping in result, so I felt the bleed was fine. But doing so with multiple lands felt a bit too much, so I curbed it.

razorborne wrote:
Hazardous Spill
does it support the theme?: it has the cost, and I think it's useful to disrupt your opponent's mana base to compensate for your own.
is it interesting?: simple, but it does its job.
is it common?: they haven't printed a stone rain for 3 at common since, well, stone rain in 9th edition, and they haven't printed one at all since rain of tears in 10th. this isn't quite that, but with the added upside of being able to hit creatures too, I think it's well beyond the level of playable LD you want running around a limited environment.
Grade: 1/5

This started as just a Murder, but I loved the name and couldn't justify it not hitting lands. Maybe it should cost more, but I don't think that's necessary. It's turn-3 land destruction that stunts your own growth, which negates much of the advantage turn-3 land destruction offers you. And you can't gain much piling them on in succession because you need to stunt that growth every single time. It just doesn't work like Stone Rain in execution.

razorborne wrote:
Sprawling Pipeline
is it properly balanced?: I think this could probably cost 2, but it's interesting.
does it support the commons?: I think this is the sort of thing the deck is absolutely gonna need.
is it interesting?: it's very cute, especially in context.
Grade: 5/5

Two notes and a question: the first is that I really wanted this to be colorless. It just felt like a better card that way. The second is that I tried to come up with a activation cost to add onto it in order to keep it colorless, but I hated everything I tried adding. With that in mind, would a colorless artifact have given me less points/gotten this card disqualified?

_________________
Dies to Removal | Karados


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2021 12:36 am 
Offline
YMtC Champ '14
YMTC Pro Tour Champion
User avatar

Joined: Jun 04, 2014
Posts: 13648
Location: Freedom
Preferred Pronoun Set: they
Two notes and a question: the first is that I really wanted this to be colorless. It just felt like a better card that way. The second is that I tried to come up with a activation cost to add onto it in order to keep it colorless, but I hated everything I tried adding. With that in mind, would a colorless artifact have given me less points/gotten this card disqualified?

as with the hybrid question from an earlier round, I view locking you into a color pair as an intrinsic function of signposts, so a card that doesn't do that won't really work. I'm not sure I'd go so far as to disqualify you but it would be reflected in the grading.

:duel:

_________________
I tend to agree with Razor.

The BLOCK I'm currently pretending I'll finish: Fleets Of Ossia (complete!) | Wavebreak (complete!) | The Second Flood (in progress!)
Razorborne and friends teach music theory to chumps like you: 12tone


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 169 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group