Community

Nov 17, 2010 -- 6:57AM, schrecklich wrote:

I was enjoying Pegaweb's review, mostly because it was easier to read than clicking on each contestant's entry.  I didn't understand all the "nothing novel" criticism though -- has there really been much novel in the game since Alliances?  It seems like Magic design now is about creating a new set that makes Limited/Standard play differently than its recent past and not about making novel cards.

I'm not looking for things that are fundamentally novel, just new combinations or flavours. There were a few such novel cards, but not many. Just because a designer has to make commons, it doesn't absolve them of the need to make creative and interesting cards. It just adds a few extra requirements on top of that (like simplicity, non-swinginess, and non-situationality). Most of the commons I saw were just mechanically-acceptable filler, or mechanically-acceptable filler with world-relevant names and types.

It's okay to create really basic cards, if they help to build up a bigger picture, but I didn't really see much of that either.

If any of the contestants wants more specific feedback on their submission, I'm happy to give it.

Nov 17, 2010 -- 7:14AM, No_Shoes wrote:

Nov 17, 2010 -- 1:18AM, adambomb76 wrote:

Shawn has 2 abilities on his cards that seem to be identical: Forsake and Pitch. Two names, one effect. Why? Or was this just an editing mistake?

It's a typo that came from working right up until the last minute. At 11 PM, I was getting negative reactions to Pitch as a name (though I've come around on it a little). Next time, I'll be sure the last hour is dedicated to editing rather than flavor massage.

Forsake is much better. There's no reason to name a mechanic something game-jargon-related and flavourless, like Pitch.

...or Kicker. :>

I assume the number after dig is a mana cost. That would be logical.

I'd say the judges will likely interpret it as such, but it will cost a brownie point.

...but then again, the judges will tear into these cards so hard that Ken will have to get out a thesaurus to maintain his status as the crankiest one. Leaving out some reminder text isn't going to matter in the impending bloodbath. :>

On Jonathon Loucks

why does DIG have a numerical component (ala Dig 2)?  You search till you find a land in both instances, what is the 2 for?

Piercing Beam and Trail Blazer both tell you to illuminate a card as the first part of their effect, then say "do X, but do Y if you own an illuminated card".  That's confusing, the way its worded you will ALWAYS do Y, since you are fullfilling the requirement automatically prior to the effect going off.   Seems like the cards want to illuminate after the other effects, not before. 

Of course, that makes illuminate a linear mechanic, since you have to have cast an iliminate card to turn on all following ones, but it seems like thats what this mechanic wants to be.

Nov 17, 2010 -- 7:09AM, Pegaweb wrote:

It's okay to create really basic cards, if they help to build up a bigger picture, but I didn't really see much of that either.

Fair enough, that's what I wanted to see, too.  These entries are kind of an information overload so I can't really decide yet how the candidates did in this regard.  The best way is probably to print them all out and play them like the judges are doing, but I don't think I have the time/resources for that.

 Random question: does anyone else find Jay Treat's wordings like

"Creatures you and your allies control with two or more creatures types gain haste until end of turn"

difficult to comprehend on first read?  The nod to multiplayer is nice but seeing "allies" used like this on a Magic card throws my mind for a loop when trying to understand a new mechanic.  I also just don't like the phrase "two or more." For some reason, I find "more than one" easier to grasp.  So for the quoted ability above I would prefer

"Creatures you control with more than one creature type gain haste until end of turn"