11/24/2010 Feature: "GDS2, Episode 2: "Common Ground""

87 posts / 0 new
Last post
This thread is for discussion of this Feature Article, which goes live Wednesday morning on magicthegathering.com.
Other than the fact that he hated Devon's work and the real judges didn't (and a few other minor conflicts) is anyone else completely creeped out that GleamAxe ACTUALLY APPEARS TO BE THE HIVE MIND OF MAGIC R&D.

Like, seriously. Almost every major point GleamAxe makes, the judges make, and vice versa. Many of GleamAxe's card suggestions specifically fix complaints the judges had about the original cards. And I seriously almost spit out my coke and got it up my nose when I read Ken say "one and done" in the commune set, on the exact same card as GleamAxe.

I am seriously convinced GleamAxe is an internal joke they are running. It's too uncanny. The mistakes and disagreements are just a diversion. WE MUST CRACK THE CODE.
Wow I just got to Scott Van Essen's page and Ken Nagle picks on the THUG subtype, JUST LIKE GLEAMAXE.

I think GleamAxe is Ken. He's giving us so many hints.
It's not Ken, it's just all of them, look at this from both Daniel Williams pages ON JUST THE FIRST CARD:

MR: If I have a red card in my hand, my opponent can never block me?
GA: most basic of degenerate combos from sneaking into his 1 CMC common.

MR: Limiting use to once per turn seems like the obvious choice.
GA: the ability has been restricted to one activation per turn

MR: how easy are you trying to make revealing a card
GA: make the card a more balanced and less universal reveal outlet

MR: I would change the reveal cost to having to reveal a red card
GA: the red requirement has been shifted to the cost

The only thing the judges left out that GA said was changing it to a wolf, but that would have been too obvious. They must be taking turns writing GleamAxe reviews.
Dear GDS2 contestants,

Sorry, no relaxing Thanksgiving weekend with your families for you.  Also, many of the community members who would have been helping you with your submissions will be off enjoying their long holiday weekends.

Good luck.

sincerely,
Wizards of the Coast
MaRo stated on multiple occasions that they dont do LD at common anymore, yet every set in standard has a common LD spell and zendikar even had 2.  I mean i guess Zendikar block had a land matters theme, so that kind of makes sense but there are a ton of overcosted LD spells with random other effects tacked on them at common so its weird to see him make such a big point about them not doing that anymore.
Surprised Loucks didn't get the boot.  They seem a lot more down on his submission than Jay Treat.
Just finished reading Jonathan Woodward's comments:

MR: I feel like you're telling me things but not exciting me.
GA: They are supposed to excite the audience, not put them to sleep.

KN: Is this commentary on Sakura-Tribe Elder's power level?
GA: taking Sakura-Tribe Elder and making it strictly worse

KN: This card will be the cause of many turn-two Eldrazi Conscriptions
GA: a deck with the 16 cheapest favored creatures, 4 Eldrazi Conscription

MR: agree with Ken—I'm not sure what the Aura destruction text is doing here
GA: both loves and hates auras. What an astonishing mess of contradictions!

KN: The Toad creature type doesn't exist in Magic
GA: we don’t print creatures with subtype toad

MR: This is the fourth card with favored and the third one with reach
GA: another common creature with reach and favored. What are the odds?

MT: Unfortunately, swarm just doesn't work
GA: rearranging and reordering blockers just doesn’t work

KN: square stats ... trample ability combine for uncommon status
GA: A 6/6 trample for 6, however, almost certainly isn’t common

MR: I wish you picked a mechanic other than trample
GA: wonder why swarms of insects trample

KN: Erupt is going to be difficult in Limited
GA: Erupt would be meaningless in limited

KN: Maybe upside Tangle shouldn't be common
GA: it’s way more of a beating than Tangle, an uncommon

MR: I think +3/+3 is a little much at common
GA: Oakenform notwithstanding, this is probably uncommon

KN: Third is brokenness
GA: favored is “buh-roken,”

MT: Mechanics that remind the rules manager of banding tend to have a short life expectancy
GA: That’s why we axed banding

GleamAxe is a hundred percent an r&d joke.
I'm afraid the underlying reason for such immense amount of complexity, words, and tension at common here is, "The players that can't handle large decision trees are worse than me, so they should lose."

Hardly. The thing you have to realise is that much as WotC's push for a wider audience is a valid commercial objective, the set Jon's designing would play brilliantly for the subset of Magic players capable of keeping up. That's not one or two elite pros, that's a substantial minority of Magic's audience.

Speaking as someone who's actually playtested some of the cards, I have to say that I think you were much too harsh over the whole submission. Too many creatures? Fair comment. Too complex to print at Common? Maybe, but only if you measure by word count. Living Reflection is extremely grokkable. Overpowered Commons? Absolutely not.
GleamAxe is a hundred percent an r&d joke.

While I think you're overstating the commonalities, many of these comments are ones I'd make, too. If the comments of GleamAxe and R&D are similar, it's because there's an objective problem, and both parties are able to identify it.

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

Just letting everyone see the GDS2 playtest cards! (If you didn't see them already on Twitter):



They are in Multiverse. Just one button press away from being in booster packs!
Kenneth Nagle Game Designer Wizards of the Coast
Any two people who do a card-by-card evaluation are going to make a ton of the same observations. Literally every comment that R&D and Gleamaxe have in common that you listed for Jon W. is one that I would have listed myself (maybe minus one or two), plus there's a bunch of things that I would have said that either R&D said and GA didn't or vice versa. Try it yourself; the next time submissions go up, do an extensive card-by-card evaluation of one of the submissions, in the same style as they do. I guarantee that unless you're pretty out of touch, there'll be immense overlap between the three. GA and Ken both brought up STE when they saw the card because the card is exactly STE with a tap as part of the cost. Anyone who was playing during the period where STE was big would immediately think of the card, and even many players who weren't playing at that time would. That obvious criticisms of certain things exist and that both R&D and GA mention these obvious things isn't evidence that they're the same people. There's also places where they sharply disagree; not only is the tone of the responses to Devon's submission completely different, but R&D likes the stuff that GA foams about, and the few things that GA likes (Business Venture) are things that R&D was more iffy on. GA also doesn't understand what the rules about reprints were, something that seems unlikely if he's R&D.

Also, both MaRo and GA have said that GA's not an insider, which is a pretty strong reason to believe he's not.
GleamAxe showed up on the sirlin.net forums to discuss GDS2, so no, he's not from Wizards. He just knows what he's talking about.

Guys, a lot of these comments are really obvious. Anyone with a DCI number knows that a pair of 2/1 trample haste creatures for R is overpowered, "0: Reveal a card from your hand" on a 1/1 for R is overpowered, or "Free Eldrazi Conscription" for GG is overpowered. Similarly, it's not a big leap to realize that three spiders, three vanilla creatures, or six graveyard triggers out of 18 common cards is way out there, as long as you read the instructions and asked yourself, "What would a normal set look like?"
Ken, why did your initials change to KT for one comment on Shawn Main's cards??
you are hiring an intern for god's sake not Gm for the company, and this is not dancing with the stars. Stop torturing that people and choose one.

They are in Multiverse. Just one button press away from being in booster packs!



If that button exists, I'd love to know where it is. Designers . . .

Del Laugel

Editing manager, Magic TCG

jeez... I know it is much easier to criticize than to act, but still, I seriously seriously feel like I could do better in the span of a day than any of these submissions. Aren't these eight the top end out of hundreds of applicants, the creme of the crop? One would expect the combination of innovation and good execution to be common among them rather than almost nonexistent. And in fact the majority do not even seem to know the usual levels of complexity, power level, and variability expected for commons of a set, which would suggest they do not even play much magic, let alone design for it.

Is it just that an intern job at R&D hold so little appeal that no one with real talent applied?
I love Jonathan's Evolve trigger - the one on Cave Bear and Eohippus - and I think that Shawn's Bloodlust is absolutely great. I kinda liked what Shawn did with Blight as well, although that doesn't look like a fun deck for me.

I would really have wanted Daniel's set to work out, but it looks like he's not there yet. 
I love the enthusiasm of people like vy4pres, but please allow me to reiterate I am not an employee of Wizards of the Coast. What similarities exist between our reviews arise because many of the mistakes the finalists are making are easy to identify. Also, we share many opinions about Magic design. There is probably just as much that we disagree on. (A less charitable person might say those are instances where I'm simply wrong.)

To space_loner I reply that while, yes, many of the finalists are relatively inexpert and make what seem like novice mistakes, you probably underestimate the difficulty of the time constraints and the requirement that they use cards from the wiki. Also keep in mind that they were not chosen for their card design skills. And it could be, for example, that the multiple choice test filtered people in a way that was at cross purposes to the stated goals of the competition.

Anyway, I don't plan on keeping up with the forums or responding to much (writing the reviews is time consuming enough as it is), but I felt the need to once again remind everyone that I am a schlub, and please read my 

Pretty interesting comments from the judges. I like that they playtested the cards as it gives a different perspective on how cards play. (And i bet you next time they'll shuffle up one of each common from this and last test and do two colored decks.)

Guest judges were cool, i still miss Gleemax (the real one), but i like to see alot of different people judging. My only comment on the judges is that i would have liked to see a nondesigner as one of the main judges.

This week's challange seems like a doozy. While on the surface it seems like a repeat of last week's, The addition of "Has to play well with what came before it" makes me think that these commons will be playtested with the previous ones.

It will be interesting to see how the evolve this time.

… and then, the squirrels came.
Hmm, it the listing on the elimination page a ranking of the contestants' submissions for the challenge?


Shawn Main


Devon Rule


Ethan Fleischer


Scott Van Essen


Daniel Williams


Jonathan Woodward


Jay Treat


Jonathon Loucks


That seems to match the tone of the reviews.  Interestingly, Loucks is listed below Treat.  Perhaps, Loucks' commons were worse than Treat's, but the strength of Loucks' previous work allowed him to dodge elimination this time?  Rosewater made it clear at the beginning that this competition is a job interview and that eliminations are decided based on the entire body of work rather than on the most recent submission.

The biggest surprises to me were Fleischer, Williams, and Loucks.  I had the contestants ranked as: (Rule, Loucks, Williams, Main), (Treat, van Essen), and (Woodward, Fleischer) (names within parentheses were about equal to me).  Fleischer's set seemed so unfocused that I am surprised they weren't harsher on him.  He had some simple cards that looked like they were fun to play, so that probably helped him.  I didn't playtest Williams' cards, and the judges stated that his cards played out a lot less fun than they looked so I can understand why his submission was not well received.  I didn't consider how harshly the judges would criticize Loucks for his level of complexity.

Other than the fact that he hated Devon's work and the real judges didn't

I think you're picking and choosing what you want to value in GleamAxe's posts.  Differing in the reception of one entire submission is much more telling than agreeing on dozens of obvious templating errors.  GleamAxe is a good poster with a solid understanding of Magic design, but so are Pegaweb, Skibo, Zammm, HavelockVetinari, and many others.  The major distinction is that GleamAxe has adopted a persona that allows him to be unnecessarily (but often hilariously) harsh.

This week's challange seems like a doozy. While on the surface it seems like a repeat of last week's, The addition of "Has to play well with what came before it" makes me think that these commons will be playtested with the previous ones. 

This seems to put Woodward, Williams, and Loucks at a bit of a disadvantage since their submissions were not well received.  I guess that's fair since the competition is supposed to be cumulative.


jeez... I know it is much easier to criticize than to act, but still, I seriously seriously feel like I could do better in the span of a day than any of these submissions. Aren't these eight the top end out of hundreds of applicants, the creme of the crop? One would expect the combination of innovation and good execution to be common among them rather than almost nonexistent. And in fact the majority do not even seem to know the usual levels of complexity, power level, and variability expected for commons of a set, which would suggest they do not even play much magic, let alone design for it.

Is it just that an intern job at R&D hold so little appeal that no one with real talent applied?

As GleamAxe said, the multiple choice had its issues, but I won't harp on that. I've said my piece on that subject already.

Instead, let me direct you (anyone interested, in fact) to the "playing along" submissions for the first challenge: community.wizards.com/magicthegathering/...


I'm curious to see how people compare the work those playing along for kicks. (On a related side note, I suspect there was thought behind the color selection, but I'm not sure what sort, or whether I care to analyze the round 2 selections and round 1 submissions, in order to find out.)


 I pretty much had the review pegged (major issues, good stuff, etc.), but the one thing I thought rather interesting (which Mark Rosewater touched on briefly) was how little the contestants seemed to value the community work. Maybe a lot had to do with them taking a good deal of time to figure out what color they wanted to use, and thus not having as much time for submissions to filter in, but it seemed like a lot of them utilized the wiki community rather poorly. Curious, since a this was supposedly a major point Wizards was looking for.

It's important to realize that most posters haven't playtested the cards, so we have to go on our intuition. We also don't see the entire design spectrum, i'm sure Maro has seen alot of rough mechanics get polished into amazing ones, and so is likely to be more flexible with rough designs.

In the end, i think we are going to need a drastic shift in perception when judging future contestant's submissions. This isn't a pure design competition anymore. We'll have to take into account flavor, synergy, and vision.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I had a hearty laugh when Maro asked the designers not to just pick vanilla creatures as the wiki submission... but that's exactly what the wiki promotes. It's very hard to convey exactly what you need on the Wiki, so instead you just have the pick the simplest cards that can fit into your set. (Next time can we please have a forum to work with?)

I pretty much had the review pegged (major issues, good stuff, etc.), but the one thing I thought rather interesting (which Mark Rosewater touched on briefly) was how little the contestants seemed to value the community work. Maybe a lot had to do with them taking a good deal of time to figure out what color they wanted to use, and thus not having as much time for submissions to filter in, but it seemed like a lot of them utilized the wiki community rather poorly. Curious, since a this was supposedly a major point Wizards was looking for.



I think this has alot to do with the atricious interface with the wiki. A wiki is good if you have alot of changes to make to a source material, but the nature of the challange is a conversational one.

It's not like the contestants throw out six cards and then everyone changes those six cards until you get the final product.

I think if each designer had his or her own group, and was able to have conversations, they'd use the community more.

The idea of using the community as a design team seems neat, but the wiki just doesn't work for it. Groups would have been better.
… and then, the squirrels came.
Some of these designs are shockingly bad. Others are pretty good, but man.  

Really, a 4 power red flying haste creature for 5 at common? This card was included by someone who PASSED the multiple choice?? It's one thing to forget an "only once per turn" clause that was obviously supposed to be on the 1-mana red common guy, or to not really get how isolated from other sets your set might be, but seeing things like that are just stunning.

The Wiki is also incredibly awful, so whatever. This should be an individual thing anyway, to be honest. If R&D is interested in their ability to select cards, rather than make them - well, then R&D should present them with a set of cards, and have them select from it.  

I think this has alot to do with the atricious interface with the wiki. A wiki is good if you have alot of changes to make to a source material, but the nature of the challange is a conversational one. 

It's not like the contestants throw out six cards and then everyone changes those six cards until you get the final product.

I think if each designer had his or her own group, and was able to have conversations, they'd use the community more.

The idea of using the community as a design team seems neat, but the wiki just doesn't work for it. Groups would have been better.




You may be right, but I'd point out that "small creature, evasion, new_mechanic" is a pretty open request, and if you actively point people to what you'd like them to help with, you'll get better results. Looking at initial suggestions and giving feedback, even stuff like, "I like this kind of idea, can you guys try to spin this a few different ways?" is the way to do it, I think. I know I'm more willing to put a little effort forth for these guys if I know it's looked at, rather than dumped on the floor because he took the first Grizzly Bear that came along.


As to the wiki being...uh...lackluster, true, but you work with what you're given, right?

Really, a 4 power red flying haste creature for 5 at common?



You have to remember; this is something that developers can shoot down and correct with ease. They're not applying for a job as a developer, but as a designer. And coming up with the idea of a western world within magic is actually pretty clever, even though he didn't really made it this time.

I saw a *lot* of guys in the first round who could make perfectly balanced cards. But they simply lacked visions, so their sets were dull. You can teach a guy with visions how to properly balance cards, but you can't teach a guy who just cares about balance to make something innovative and interesting.

This should be an individual thing anyway, to be honest. If R&D is interested in their ability to select cards, rather than make them - well, then R&D should present them with a set of cards, and have them select from it.  



No, you don't get it. They won't work as solitary individuals when they get to Wizards. It's important that they know how to convey their ideas and visions to the rest of their teams, and are able to communicate what their sets needs and what they want help with. These will be important qualities if they ever get to work at wizards, so naturally, that's also a big and important part of the test. The test isn't about their ability to simply "select" cards.
To space_loner I reply that while, yes, many of the finalists are relatively inexpert and make what seem like novice mistakes, you probably underestimate the difficulty of the time constraints and the requirement that they use cards from the wiki.

Speaking of which, what exactly is that requirement? I've seen it mentioned in passing a couple times here on the forums, but I'm not sure on the details of what it means.

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

Really, a 4 power red flying haste creature for 5 at common? This card was included by someone who PASSED the multiple choice?? It's one thing to forget an "only once per turn" clause that was obviously supposed to be on the 1-mana red common guy, or to not really get how isolated from other sets your set might be, but seeing things like that are just stunning.



I hate to sound like a broken record, but the multiple choice test isn't a very good indication of anything. luck was a pretty big factor in the thing. Passing the test doesn't mean you have perfect knowledge of magic.

The Wiki is also incredibly awful, so whatever. This should be an individual thing anyway, to be honest. If R&D is interested in their ability to select cards, rather than make them - well, then R&D should present them with a set of cards, and have them select from it.  



I somewhat agree with you here, but Magic sets aren't designed alone, so wanting the designers to work in groups isn't a bad idea... i just wish the interface was better.

I think individual submissions, taking in comments from the judges and others in the community would work to the same end as the community.

I think Maro wanted to include the community in the GDS2, which is why i think they did the whole wiki thing.

To space_loner I reply that while, yes, many of the finalists are relatively inexpert and make what seem like novice mistakes, you probably underestimate the difficulty of the time constraints and the requirement that they use cards from the wiki.

Speaking of which, what exactly is that requirement? I've seen it mentioned in passing a couple times here on the forums, but I'm not sure on the details of what it means.



What are you asking here?

In the first submission, 4 cards had to come from the Wiki.
On this past submission you needed to get 6 cards from the wiki.
In this next submission you need to get 6 cards from the wiki.
… and then, the squirrels came.
I wonder what Matt Tabak was thinking when he said that "listing a watermark" in your submissions "probably will" mean that "cards referenced them ... at higher rarities". About anyone who scored even a few points on the multiple choice test should realize that watermarks cannot be referenced for the same reason that expansion symbols aren't referenced anymore. I could understand a tangential 'just in case you're thinking to do the impossible, don't', but Matt makes it sound like an inevitability that one of the designers would try it. Shouldn't the same warning then go out about ability words (okay, that was part of the multiple choice test)? Were too many designers trying to reference the faction watermarks in Scars block designs?
I wonder what Matt Tabak was thinking when he said that "listing a watermark" in your submissions "probably will" mean that "cards referenced them ... at higher rarities". About anyone who scored even a few points on the multiple choice test should realize that watermarks cannot be referenced for the same reason that expansion symbols aren't referenced anymore. I could understand a tangential 'just in case you're thinking to do the impossible, don't', but Matt makes it sound like an inevitability that one of the designers would try it. Shouldn't the same warning then go out about ability words (okay, that was part of the multiple choice test)? Were too many designers trying to reference the faction watermarks in Scars block designs?



I was thinking "Gee, a few designers took the time to include watermarks in their card submissions. This is not something designers would likely do unless they intend them to be mechanically relevant. I should ward them away from doing this, because it's a road fraught with peril. Also, I haven't eaten in a few hours. Maybe I should grab a sandwich while the cafe is still open. After judging these submissions, I still have to pack. I hope the weather is nice in Dallas this weekend. Man, I hope the Packers crush the Vikings this weekend and then Childress is fired. Gottlieb would love that. Oh man, cafe's closing soon, I should go."

Not all of these thoughts were relevant to the task at hand, but I believe it's an accurate representation of what I was thinking when I wrote my response. Also, ability words are fine, and can be a valuable tool for communicating how your mechanics fit into your world vision.
Magic: The Gathering Rules Manager Wizards of the Coast Follow me @TabakRules
What are you asking here?

In the first submission, 4 cards had to come from the Wiki.
On this past submission you needed to get 6 cards from the wiki.
In this next submission you need to get 6 cards from the wiki.

I'm asking that. I didn't know that.

Also, what exactly counts as 'comes from the wiki'?

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

I was thinking "Gee, a few designers took the time to include watermarks in their card submissions. This is not something designers would likely do unless they intend them to be mechanically relevant. I should ward them away from doing this, because it's a road fraught with peril. Also, I haven't eaten in a few hours. Maybe I should grab a sandwich while the cafe is still open. After judging these submissions, I still have to pack. I hope the weather is nice in Dallas this weekend. Man, I hope the Packers crush the Vikings this weekend and then Childress is fired. Gottlieb would love that. Oh man, cafe's closing soon, I should go."


That was a tad more detailed than I hoped for, but thanks. Cool

I'd say there are more things that designers don't usually do in this contest, though I guess most aren't as perilous as including watermarks. I included the point about ability words because I've seen more consistent claims that they could be referenced when they can't than I have with watermarks, which could easily be countered with a "Then there couldn't be reprints in Scars." The use of watermarks in these submissions does feel more like an attempt at communicating the factioning clearly in Scott van Essen's submission, and as a quick visual indicator that you succeeded at communing in Jay Treat's submission (it doesn't quite work thanks to added class types, but it seems to be the intention).
I'm asking that. I didn't know that.



Ah, yes Maro includes that information in the challanges, but doesn't repeat it for the actual submissions.

Also, what exactly counts as 'comes from the wiki'?



Anything on the Wik is fair game. Be it submitted to you directly, or posted somewhere else. You just need to give credit.

You are also allowed to modify the cards a little bit, change the name/creature type. But nothing major.
… and then, the squirrels came.
Wow I just got to Scott Van Essen's page and Ken Nagle picks on the THUG subtype, JUST LIKE GLEAMAXE. I think GleamAxe is Ken. He's giving us so many hints.




I'm not sure if its Ken, but i thought it was obvious that Gleamaxe worked for wizards.....many of his/her suggestions phrase things such as "we wouldn't ever print", not "they wouldn't ever print".  The character speaks about Wizards in the first person, so I always assumed it was an employee and never thought it was a mystery.

The only thing I feel quite sure about is that it isn't MaRo.  Frankly, he'd do a better job with the character.  I suspect that the original Gleemax from GDS1 was MaRo, and he has handed it down to someone else (unfortunately to someone a bit less entertaining, but still fun enough).

Chris Millar...now THAT would be an awesome Gleemax.  Someone call him up and see if he's not too busy for the next few weeks.

Snip



I think the designers were using watermarks to help establish thier worlds, much like how alot of them used abiility words.

I'm pretty sure if they wanted to do "watermarks matter" they'd have done it in the commons.

Though, i'll remind everyone that when Ravnica was first being designed, there was a guild matters theme in there that used the card's set symbol as it's basis. (This was quickly abondoned for being unworkable).

* I'll also note that Ken was incorrect in saying that they only used watermarks in twice, watermarks were first printed in Unglued, and are also in unhinged. Making it four times when watermarks are used (Not that the un-watermarks were used the same way, but they have been done elsewhere).
… and then, the squirrels came.
I'm not sure if its Ken, but i thought it was obvious that Gleamaxe worked for wizards.....

He doesn't. He's a non-employee, speaking in-character as though he were Gleemax.

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

snip



He's not a wizards employee, if he was he'd have the WotC title added to his name. He's just a regular guy who decided to pick up the Gleemax title.

Gleemax isn't in this GDS, possibly because Maro wants to take a more serious approach to it.
… and then, the squirrels came.
I love Jonathan Ethan's Evolve trigger - the one on Cave Bear and Eohippus - and I think that Shawn's Bloodlust is absolutely great. I kinda liked what Shawn did with Blight as well, although that doesn't look like a fun deck for me.

FTFY. 


Also, I thought this was funny:

Daniel Williams


CR6
Viashino War Priest 1rr
1rr
Creature- Viashino Shaman
2/2
Trample
When Sand Tribe War Priest enters the battlefield, have a showdown with target opponent. If you win, Sand Tribe War Priest gets +3/+0 and gains haste until end of turn.


KEN: Trample seems unnecessary here.


MR: With my caveat about showdown out of the way, I kind of like this card. My biggest problem with it was that I often didn't have any reason to want to want to "kick" it. If the card had some kind of evasion, I'd be a little more motivated to win the showdown.


Trample is a kind of evasion!


They are in Multiverse. Just one button press away from being in booster packs!



If that button exists, I'd love to know where it is. Designers . . .



It's next to the ANY key. <|:>
Ok, I get the urge to go and submit a card on each of the remaining contestant's wikis.

Using Pegaweb's card in your submission will bring good luck.

\:>

Ok guys

Here's a card for each of you, specially designed by the illustrious Pegaweb. I've pasted them to your various card pages.

It's easier to make creatures, so I mostly went for the slightly harder card types.

Show


Ethan Fleischer – Blue

Juvenile Feathers
U
Enchantment - Aura

Enchant creature with power 2 or less
Enchanted creature has flying and shroud.


Jonathan Loucks – White

Seal Off
2W
Sorcery

Exile target nonland permanent you control and target nonland permanent an opponent controls.


Shawn Main – Blue

Meddling Clairvoyant
1U
Creature - Human Wizard
1/2
If a spell or ability would cause you to draw cards, instead draw one extra card, then discard a card.


Devon Rule – White

Begone!
W
Instant

Exile target nonland permanent that entered the battlefield this turn from a library.


Scott Van Essen – Red

Spoils of Plunder
1R
Sorcery

Put a +1/+1 counter on each creature that attacked this turn.


Daniel Williams – Green

Giant Tumbleweed
G
Creature - Plant
0/4
Shroud
Defending player blocks Giant Tumbleweed if able.


Jonathan Woodward – Black

Murderous Envy
B
Sorcery

Destroy target enchanted creature. That creature's controller may attach an aura attached to that creature to another creature he or she controls.