I never knew Echo_Robin was a girl. Sorry for all the misused pronouns. .__.
Don't worry about it. It happens so much anyway, I just thought now would be a good a time as any to bring it up.
Sundial of the Infinite interacting with breakout was something I was aware of when I designed it. There are two solutions to that: change breakout's reminder text to "next end step" which would cause them to be sacrificed regardless; or ignore it. You lose a lot with the first choice. Interaction with blink effects, interaction with the Sundial , and things along those lines. I'm not beyond changing the text, but I'm not entirely convinced that Sundial of the Infinite would make breakout into something overpowered.
As for the lack of a riot card in my five submissions, I take issue with that too. The problem I've run across is that I couldn't find a card that fit into the open white or green slot with riot at a rarity I wanted. I also didn't want to show off four creatures and I'm dead set that Keen-Sighted Sprite and Neyra are in.
That leaves red, green, and white as my open colors. I wanted a breakout creature no matter what, and Cellblazer was a good choice since it shows off a subtheme of "haste matters" that the set has going for it. Here's another example from a previous round.
Thira, the Defiant Blade | Legendary Creature - Human Rebel Soldier(R) Double strike Creatures you control with haste get +2/+2. Breakout (: Put this card from your hand onto the battlefield. It gains haste. Sacrifice it at the beginning of the end step.) "This is not justice, and I will not stand for it." 2/3
Now that breakout works at instant speed, the breakout cost may need work. Regardless, this is the near final version (flavor still needs tweaking) with Yarium's critiques taken into account. So, with haste being such a big thing in the set, a breakout card that exemplified that was necessary. That doesn't leave me many options for the last two slots. Call it poor planning on my part, but I had a white and green card left and no real room for riot.
White has plenty of riot cards in both rare and common, but I didn't want to stick another creature into the set without a good reason. The set is fast paced and I think the Slip Past does a good job showing that off. Green's supply of riot cards, while adequate, don't exist outside of creatures, and like I said before, I didn't want four creatures (yes, the enchantment changes into a creature, but it didn't start out as a creature).
Actually, scratch that. I thought up a solution just now.
I think you could easily justify a riot card in White or Green if you base flavorfully such as with Kessig Cagebreakers and Unruly Mob as both card could reasonably be altered to have riot and have it not only fit the card, but fit it flavorfully and be an excellent part of a future set with it.
Then again you did just think of a solution, so this may be null and void.
As for flavor...
"'Justice?' So that's what they call this. I see that words have failed us, but my blade has not yet failed me."
Be sure to join A Contest Like No Other! It is currently the longest lasting continuous contest in the YMtC forum. New designers are always welcome and can join in at any time.
Every week after I play draft I'll record my Draft Decks and the results. With a new deck every Friday or Saturday it is a wealth of interesting new decks. Feel free to drop by at any time to give suggestions or critiques!
At this point, thank you audience for the work and criticism you have given! It is now up to the contestants to make final revisions and repost their final tagline, world, and 5 cards. The audience can of course continue to give criticism, but the contestants do not need to try to respond to any of it.
+1: Each player reveals his or her hand until your next turn.
+3: Each player draws 3 cards.
-9: You receive an emblem that says, "At the beginning of each upkeep, search your library, graveyard, hand, and cards in exile for a card. You may play that card without paying its mana cost."
Loyalty: 2
I am a Rules Advisor as of This Date: Aug 13/2010
Reminder text will tell somebody "(You are stupid. Have less fun.)" -WotC_dlaugel
Renegor, is a massive, inhospitable plane that is almost entirely empty, save for one thing: a prison. City-like, it spans most of Renegor as a monstrous collection of walls, towers, labyrinth-like tunnels, and dark catacombs.
While its original purpose and creator have long been forgotten, the prison is now a holding facility for the multiverse's most dangerous criminals. Watched over day and night by an army of guards under the command of ruthless wardens, it's a inescapable fortress.
Even so, it's inhabitants do not always sit quietly. Escapes are a daily ritual, and though no one is known to have ever succeeded, attempts are always plentiful. The guards keep busy, chasing and hunting. It's a constant war for control with riots breaking out and massive guard forces mobilizing to restore order.
The punishment for disobedience is swift and fierce. Those deemed too troublesome or too dangerous to leave in even the most secure of cells are thrown into the catacombs beneath the prison, known only as the Void. There, within the darkness, lurk monstrous horrors called the Voidbane. They torture each new victim, driving them slowly into madness. It's the worst fate that can await you on Renegor, a punishment worse than death.
Now there are whispers of a fracturing in the guards. Plots for the biggest escape attempt yet are forming in the minds of those desperate for freedom. Rumors say the Void may house an escape if you can survive. Now's the time for action. Breakout, riot, and perhaps you'll be free yet.
Riot (Whenever this creature attacks, it gets +1/+0 for each other attacking creature.)
What's a prison without a good riot, or two? As you could probably tell, this is battle cry in reverse. Even the most meager of people can become quite active and powerful when they're surrounded by others. The bigger the crowd, the more powerful your rioters will get.
Breakout [cost] ([cost]: Put this card from your hand onto the battlefield. It gains haste. Sacrifice it at the beginning of the end step.)
Evoke was always a fun mechanic, and people really enjoy cards like Sneak Attack , so why not mix the two? That basically sums up breakout. Prisoners don't like being in prison and they'll do anything to get out. Though, in a world like Renegor you won't last long outside your cell. Even so, why not taste your freedom if even for just a moment.
Keen-Sighted Sprites | Creature - Faerie Scout (C) Flash Flying When ~ enters the battlefield, the next permanent that enters the battlefield this turn enters the battlefield tapped. They knew what you were up to before you did. 1/1
Hidden Rioters | Enchantment (C) Whenever an opponent casts a spell during your turn, if ~ is an enchantment, it becomes a 3/3 Warrior creature with riot. (Whenever this creature attacks, it gets +1/+0 until end of turn for each attacking creature.)
Cellblazer | Creature - Goblin Wizard(U) : ~ deals 1 damage to target creature or player. If ~ has haste, it deals 2 damage to that creature or player instead. Breakout (: Put this card from your hand onto the battlefield. It gains haste. Sacrifice it at the beginning of the end step.) 1/1
Slip Past | Instant(R) Exile target nontoken creature, then return it to the battlefield under its owner's control. There are places where prying eyes cannot see, listening ears cannot hear, and seeking hands cannot feel.
Neyra, Empress of the Void | Legendary Creature - Gorgon(M) Deathtouch Whenever a creature an opponent controls dies, you may pay . If you do, return that card to the battlefield under your control. "This cell shall by my throne; this prison, my palace; and this world, my empire." 5/5
Solphos is a renewed world – a dying plane given new life by the power of science.
Massive furnaces reduce arcane solutions to powder and vaporise it into strangely colored gas. Banks of galvanic nodes collect the sparks of the crumbling sun to light the landscape of Solphos with ozone lamps. Over the clash of brass dueling swords, magnetic rail-cannons fire. And in darkened laboratories thousands of miles beneath the earth, alchemy takes place on a grand scale.
On Solphos, magic behaves according to arcane rules found nowhere else in the Multiverse. Mana is drawn from supernatural reactions rather than from the land. One kind of spell can be converted to another by the application of energy. Because of this, the mages of the plane refer to themselves as the chymia magna – the great alchemists.
Solphos is maintained by a shadowy, near-mythic crew of engineers and experimenters collectively referred to as the Philosophers. Their quest is to understand the mechanisms that make their plane tick, and thus perfect the world through judicious application of the scientific method.
The citizenry of Solphos live in subsections of the plane called periochs – bastions of civilization that are few and far between. Within each perioch, you will find knowledge surpassing even Dominaria's greatest archives, as well as mechanical and alchemical wonders beyond measure. However, those that venture outside into the so-called Dark Lands must beware the abominations of science and the poisoned environment that lie therein.
As the experiments of the Philosophers grow more and more volatile, and the stakes skyrocket, the very nature of Solphos is warped and irrevocably altered. Can you adapt to the strange ways of the chymia magna, and the devious machinations of alchemy, on this plane?
Solphos's main theme is "combo matters." When you play with cards from this set, you'll be sifting for combo pieces as you exchange blows. When you finally hit your critical moment, you can slam down your hand and chain your way to victory. To that end, Solphos contains ways for every color to tear through its library, and it contains a wealth of combo-enabling cards that Johnnies would die for.
Catalyze is a new keyword mechanic that's exclusive to the Solphos block. When you have three cards in your hand that share either a color or a card type, you can reveal them to give all your catalyze cards a massive bonus. For example, Voracious Cryptid is a green Hill Giant that becomes a whopping 6/6 trampler when catalyzed. Catalyze was designed as a way to let the 'combo matters' theme show through in Limited and give the set a distinctive playstyle.
Transmute is a well-loved mechanic from Ravnica that is returning in Solphos. Because it's a perfect flavor match for the steampunk-alchemy-science setting, as well as a great enabler for my combo theme, I felt no qualms about bringing it back. This time around, transmute appears in every color instead of just being restricted to blue and black, and a minor graveyard theme lets you have fun with the cards you've already transmuted away.
Ingredient is a new spell type you'll see on certain instants and sorceries. These spells represent the conjuration of special substances which make up the building blocks of basic Solphosian alchemy. All Ingredients say "Do X for each Ingredient you cast this turn." This allows you to chain together Ingredients, picking up speed with your reaction, until you top off your recipe with the devastating finisher of your choice.
Lux Lucis Purgatum [Art of glowing beings tethered to a giant rusted arch. Light pours from the ground towards the sky.] Creature – Spirit (M) 4/4
Flying Catalyze – Reveal three cards that share a color or a card type from your hand: Destroy all tapped creatures. Activate this ability only during your turn and only once each turn.
The light is the way forward. Blessed be those who follow. Damned be those who stay. –Plaque at Kardiopolis
I decided to overhaul three of my cards, add art descriptions, and add a new mechanic at the last minute.
Think of how Neo couldn't beat the robots, but they kept him around anyways to defeat Agent Smith. Sure, the robots might not like having a Neo running rampant because instead of playing their favorite 4 drop fatty robot, they have to play a bunch of one mana Matrixs to contain him, but at least Neo keeps Agent Smith from reanimating an Iona on turn two.
I really enjoy imagining this from Kevin's perspective. Because in Kevin's world, Rosewater actually reads everything he types. Mark is sitting there right now, reading this, and thinking "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled. . ." Or some such. He chuckles low, then clicks on "The Best Of KEVINSET" and says "Yes, this'll do just fine. A busty lady with banding who deals direct damage to Zones!? Why this will be the star of my next set, and no one will ever believe you Kevin." Then he closes his Macbook, so his servant may move it out of the way, while another servant puts a Fetal Richard Garfield Clone lathered in Steak Sauce in front of him. Then Mark Feasts.
I mean, In KevinWorld, Mark is reading the very words I'm typing as well. Heck, in KevinWorld maybe I am Mark.
[In response to a thread about how hard grading is]
Upon reading this, I've found myself completely unable to operate in the world. I tried to decide what to eat for breakfast, and pondered the vast consequences of my choice. How do I balance my dietary needs against my desire to eat good-tasting food? Should I factor in how long it takes to prepare? Cereal is ready in moments, but bacon takes longer to cook.
Then there is the impact on other industries. Do people in the cereal industry deserve to be employed more than people in the bacon industry? Which industry should I support? I don't even have the data regarding HOW MUCH the cereal industry benefits from me eating a bowl of cereal, or how much the bacon industry benefits from me eating a side of bacon. How can I compare two qualities I can't even quantify?
And let's not forget the milk on the cereal. In addition to determining whether or not milk is healthy for me, how much that benefits the milk industry, and how much the people in the milk industry deserve my support, we have to factor in the fact that cows are put under brutal conditions in order to collect thier milk. Of course, the same goes for the pigs, and then they get killed. Of course, I really like bacon. So I need to come up with a scale that compares the value of cow happiness to pig happiness to my happiness. What trade-offs am I willing to make here? Does the fact that the pig gets put out of its misery count as a plus or a minus? Isn't bacon bad for me anyway?
Deciding what to eat for breakfast (or any meal) is impossible. Help me!
Anyway, you'd be surprised about Time Stop. When I first saw that card as a relatively new player I didn't see its full potential until I read the reminder text. Is it that unintuitive, though? Mine I mean. What is possibility? Is it possible for me to type these words with my tusks? No, because I don't have tusks. Although I am now tempted to go buy some - obviously not from poachers or whatever - and use them as typing apparatus. I could be the best secretary ever. "What's your words per minute sir?" "Well, only six, but I use these tusks to type them." "You're hired!" That was the interview. And is anyone else disappointed that "apparati" is not the plural form of apparatus? I just could strangle a dictionary, because "apparatuses" is a real word. I guess it sounds pretty cool. I'll call them my Apparatusks.
+1: Each player reveals his or her hand until your next turn.
+3: Each player draws 3 cards.
-9: You receive an emblem that says, "At the beginning of each upkeep, search your library, graveyard, hand, and cards in exile for a card. You may play that card without paying its mana cost."
Loyalty: 2
I am a Rules Advisor as of This Date: Aug 13/2010
Reminder text will tell somebody "(You are stupid. Have less fun.)" -WotC_dlaugel
A Message from the Host: Thank you everyone. Thank you all so very much. Your participation made this possible. Once again, thank you.
We come now to the final judgement, the point where I deconstruct each and every card and group of cards. I point out strengths, but more often point out flaws. For those who thought I was being unusually cruel and harsh - you're right. That was one of my goals. By the time the contest was coming to an end, I knew that the quality of the submissions were going to rise higher and higher. Only by picking apart cards to the absolute limit (that I am capable of) would I even be able to weigh one card more highly against another.
My other major goal during this contest was to have an increasing depth of critiquing. As the number of contestants went down, the depth of my critiques went up. For those that noticed this trend, you've probably concluded that today I will be giving the longest card-by-card analysis yet, and quite possibly EVER, given. To help make this digestible for those who don't wish to design to such high standards, I've spoiler-blocked these sections off.
One of the goals of Master Designer was to push contestants to the absolute limits when designing their cards. For those that are familiar with me and the contests I run, this is probably apparent. My Y-Design contests have always been about imposing tight restrictions. Not ridiculous ones, but tight ones. I didn't want that for Master Designer. Master Designer had to be about more than that. If Y-Design was about designing cards at the last moment because a hole needed to be filled, Master Designer was about being in the actual design team working on a set of your creation. I like to think that this (being a game designer) is one of the goals of both our finalists, as they have shown remarkable intelligence, and fortitude, through this contest. I focused on them being designers - not developers. I paid little attention to names or flavour text (unless it was important for the concept of the card; a vanilla 2/2 creature in Chinkeeyong's set wouldn't make much sense, but a vanilla 2/2 creature named "Stitched Thrull" would, as that carries the concept of the set with it). It was more important that they designed more than developed.
For this final challenge though, I will be looking at all parts of every card.
Balance is a combination of different parts. It's about costing, sure, but it's also about finding the right spot. Let's say this. You can print Runeclaw Bears at or at , and both are perfectly balanced. 3-mana for a simple bear is below the curve, but if your set has a converted mana-costs matter theme or subtheme, of which the cut-off point (in either direction) is 3, suddenly costing 3 instead of two might be enough of a bonus to warrant its own increase from 2 to 3. Usually that isn't the case. My point is that balance comes from looking at the set's mechanics as a whole, and then determining where this card should sit. It also matters because some costings will resonate stronger with one audience than with another.
One note about balance. Sometimes you want to print a card with a cost higher than what it honestly should be. These are the Chimney Imp cards. Wizards has told us that such cards are made to teach players that some cards are bad. Some people looking over my contest may say "well Yarium, I didn't print this card to be good, I made it purposefully bad". I say to them, that's a Developer's job, not a Designer's job. A Designer's job is to sell the set - ESPECIALLY when you're only letting me see a portion of it at a time. I need to get excited about the cards I'm seeing. I wasn't necessarily expecting aggressive costing, but I didn't want to see purposefully bad costing (unless it was in good taste, like TherealphatMatt's final design).
As the Wizard's designers and developers so often say in their articles, the colour pie is the heart of Magic: The Gathering's success. It is CRITICAL that a good designer be intimately familiar with where an ability should, and should not go, based on the colour pie. Although everyone thinks they know colour pie, I would say that we're all wrong. We all know a little bit, some more than others, but I would challenge anyone that says they have a full understanding like the actual designers do. I think I know a bit more about the colour pie than most, but I still don't fully get the "crust, magma, and core" conceptualization of the colour pie (which seems to work opposite of how one would think it should... the crust staying the same, but the core slowly shifting over time...).
However, using what I do know, I can tell when a mechanic should, or should not be present in a colour (usually based on rarity). For example, should green tap creatures? Generally speaking, no. However, if they tap ALL creatures, then I would argue that such a mechanic could show up in Green without a fuss, as green already has access to Fog -effects, and tapping down all creatures is enough like that effect that it could work in it. This is one of the reasons I hate Hornet Sting , as it's a direct damage spell in Green. It doesn't matter to me that it's a pretty pathetic card, it just matters that Green shouldn't be so direct like red is - especially at common. Hurricane , on the other hand is fine, because it hits flying creatures, which Green has a grudge against.
Part of balance is costing, but costing honestly deserves to be looked at in another light as well. Costing isn't just about how much something should or shouldn't be worth, but also about how available it should be to players in a set, how the costing speaks about the card's colour commitment, and how the costing represents where the card fits in the set. A low-cost, aggressive card in a slow set is very potent threat. A low-cost, aggressive card in a fast set is merely on curve.
Sometimes the cost of something represents how the set works. I loved Echo_Robin's last round entry of the "Primal" mechanic, which required that the player spend mana produced by creatures to cast the spell. The mechanic had a lot going for it, but from a costing perspective, it sat EXACTLY where it needed to be. It was functional, difficult to get, and balanced, but also spoke about the creatures-matter focus of the set he was designing for (he was designing for TherealphatMatt's set at the time). In another set, this costing-mechanic would fall flat (Myr Superion is close, but looks to other Myr, so it kinda fit it's set - but still was quite a puzzler), but in a set with Manaburst, where creatures can give back some mana when they hit play, the mechanic was golden.
This isn't one that I normally looked at during the contest because, once again, it's more of a developer issue than a design issue. However, Format can be very important for judging a card when there's some confusion about what the card can or cannot do. "Destroy target creature," and "Destroy target creature. Exile it instead of putting it into a graveyard," are two very different things from a design-perspective. One says it kills creatures, the other says that the graveyard (or exile zone) is more important in this set in some way. That can have a big impact on how I judge something, because a whole new context could be set by adding in words like that.
Once again, not normally something I pay attention to. However, sometimes it's important to carry information about a set, even when you have no mechanics to work with. None of the contestants submitted vanilla or french vanilla creatures during the contest (I had never asked for them to), but if I had, their names would have been an important part of evaluating the card. Why? Because lacking other context, the card needs to stand out somehow. Recently I designed a group of Un-set Vanilla cards. How do you design Un-Set Vanilla without being able to rely on a mechanic to do so, because the card needs to be a joke. I think a great design was to include a card I called "Zombie Foreigners". This card would only appear in a foreign language (whatever the rest of the pack's language was, this card would be in a different language). That's a clever Magic joke, because many people collected cards written in other languages, and Magic is truly an international game. At the same time, it doesn't change much of the functionality of the card. If a designer needs a piece to fit their puzzle of a magic set, taking a commonly used card, and twisting the flavour of it to be set-relevant, is a smart choice.
For this last round, I'm trying to measure what people think of the SET the players are presenting and how likely they would be to buy it, so I know that a lot of people WILL look at card names and flavour text. These designers are trying to sell their cards, and flavour is a big part of that.
One of the things my contests are rarely about is "originality". People on this boards place a LOT of stock in being original. While being original can be important, you shouldn't bend over backwards to do things that have never been done before. Originality is only important when you need to open up new design space for your project. For example, Bonds of Faith isn't an original card, but the double-faced cards that appear in the same set are. Making a double-faced card for the sheer originality of it would have been terrible! You'd have to do SO MUCH to incorporate that one thing. Bonds of Faith, meanwhile, is great card design, even if it isn't doing something that very original, because Pacify/Pump enchantments are generally incorporated into a set's design. Wizards, correctly, used the double-faced mechanic, but did quite a few of them, and made it a real PART of the set. This opened up new space for the set to work within, and so was a great tool.
While it's fun to see cards that do things never done before, it's important for a designer to be able to design within the box. Compare this to living off the land by hunting for food. You want to make sure you use every part of an animal first, before trying to hunt for other stuff. If you just hunted animals for a single piece of them, you'd run out of animals very quickly. Learning to use what's there first is important. Learning how to hunt new prey is also important, but you need to use what you have first.
At the same time, it's important to recognize WHEN you need to learn how to hunt new prey. The mechanics of Scars of Mirrodin were really nothing new or original, and because of that, Wizards didn't go to that many new places. But when it came Innistrad, and wanting to portray the "horror"-theme, and recognizing that part of the horror is the good guys becoming the bad guys, the designers realized they had to go somewhere else. They didn't go there because it was there, they went because it was needed.
Timmy, Johnny, Spike, Melvin, Vorthos. These names have been burned and branded into the minds of Magic designers. Why? Because player psychology is SUCH AN IMPORTANT PART of selling Magic. Sellers need to know their market, and how their market thinks. If they know, they can tweak their designs and marketing to gain more customers. At the end of the day, Magic is a business, and business is about making money.
The Psychographics of Magic Players is not a requirement though. Just because a card is designed for Spike does not mean it can't be designed for Timmy too. Preferably speaking, you want about 30% of the cards in your set to speak to ALL players, with 60% speaking to as many players as you can (10% should be left for heavy-focused psychographics, and put these at Rare).
The true heat of Player Psychographics incorporates something fundamentally important about Magic design; what do you think is FUN? If a Magic card isn't fun, it's not a good card. Using Timmy, Johnny, and Spike to gauge this is helpful, but that's only a tool. More so than anything, deciding what you think is "fun" about Magic is the most unique part of design. Mark Rosewater loves counters, copying-effects, and tokens. He thinks that players have fun when they get to use these parts of Magic. Hence, his designs will more often use these parts, and use them in cool and different ways. The rest of Magic design has been picked apart down to a near-science by Wizards, but choosing what is fun or not is the last bastion of "the creative and original Designer". And that's important.
If you think something is fun, you got to push for it. The quarter-finalist Jessica_Morgan had a lot of different and original ideas. I could tell that he thought it was fun to pay life to do things. I don't agree, but that doesn't matter, because if Jessica_Morgan really believes that, then he should totally keep designing those effects until he gets it RIGHT. Why? Because if he is really certain that players find it fun, then chances are there are a number of other players that think like him (or her)!
(Speaking of player psychographics, notice how we assume players are male. Partly on the forums this is just us being sexist, but a larger part, and the part most like how a marketer thinks, is for simplicity. We all know males form the majority of the Magic population, so we know we'll be best received and understood by others if we make this assumption about the population, and only using "she" when we're targeting a specific person.)
Rarity is often overlooked on the You Make the Card forums. Most of us are more interested in the power, effects, psychographics, colours, and costing of our cards than in how it would appear when we publish it. The biggest confusion I see about rarity is that it determines power. While this can be true in some situations, that aspect of rarity is an off-shoot of the true MAIN reason for rarity. Rarity determines how often you see a card in a set. You will see Stampeding Rhino far more often than you'll see Emrakul, the Aeons Torn . Emrakul is more interesting because you don't see it often, and Stampeding Rhino is less interesting because you see it all the time. The Limited environment is the most important place to measure where to put an effect, and there's a reason that the majority of commons are creatures (because you want to be casting and using lots of creatures).
When you put the "stamp" of a rarity on a magic card, you are informing the player how often they may expect to use, or face, such a card. If Unruly Mob was a Rare, people wouldn't expect to be able to build around it, and the "whenever a creature you control dies" ability wouldn't appear to be a set-specific mechanic so much as a this-card-specific mechanic. As it stands, being a common tells me that creatures dying is an important part of the set, and that I shouldn't be concerned when my own creatures bite the dust.
Finally, we have set commitment. How much does this card work with the set's concept. I hated the card Savour the Moment , because it felt totally disconnected with the Shadowmoor block. This was an effect they try to squeeze in every block, but I felt that this one was done very poorly as it didn't commit to being part of the set in any way. I loved Magosi, the Waterveil , because it was a land with an ability, and was part of a cycle of lands with abilities, and fit perfectly into the "lands matter" concept of Zendikar.
When these players design their cards, they have to connect with the set they're trying to sell - even more so this round because they're trying to get people excited to play their set. If you design a simple card that could belong in ANY set, that's fine - but nothing about it is distinguishing itself for YOUR set.
What does all this mean for our contestant's entries? Let's find out!
Now that you know everything I’ll be looking at in terms of cards, it’s time to judge the player’s taglines and world-concepts. Of all the jobs of a judge, this is probably the hardest for both myself and the contestants to go through. In many ways, the world-concept is their baby. They’ve spent nearly a month devoting their time and energy to it, and all their creations have been the world’s first steps, words, and smiles. To have someone call it an ugly baby, because I must be harsh if I am to find the one winner, is something that is both difficult for myself, and for them.
When I first saw Echo_Robin’s world, it immediately reminded me of the similar concept done during The Great Designer 2. I don’t know if Echo_Robin knew that going into this, and the first thing “wrong” with her world was something similar to that designer’s interpretation of what to do. That world had two competing concepts; prison + underground. While, in theory, that was a good idea (it made the prison even more unbreakable), it split the designer’s focus between two things that honestly had equal weight. How do you portray BOTH “prison” AND “underground”? Echo_Robin’s world tried to do this too, but with “death-world” and “prison”. Same concept, it’s a prison, and even if you escape you have nowhere to run. Seeing this, I pushed Echo_Robin to sacrifice one theme or the other, and I was happy she kept the prison theme. The world outside the prison could still be a death-world, but the focus of the set, the world as it would appear to someone travelling the planes, would be this prison-world.
As a writer, Echo_Robin also was the most prolific tagline designer. I knew that we were working towards this point, where the players would have to “sell” their set to the forums, but the writers did not. Many of them didn’t see the point of making a tagline. Practice has made perfect for Echo_Robin though. After a shaky start, I think Echo_Robin has created the best tagline of all the contestants. If this was a contest for just that, I’d crown Echo_Robin the winner here and now.
Why is the tagline so good? Because it does everything you need a tagline to do. First, it catches your attention with a very action-orientated and evocative word. “Breakout” is a word with a LOT of meaning. It’s a challenge, an action, suggests a past, and looks to the future. Perfect word. It also just happens to be one of the set’s keywords, prep’ing the buyer for what lies within their purchase. The tagline suggests conflict, and also suggests the sides of the conflict, prisoner and guard, even if that isn’t directly said. Simply stating “chains” implies someone (the customer) as the one who is chained up, and someone else who is chaining someone up. My only qualm with this final tagline is pushing “riot” into it. That’s another keyword of the set. Although also evocative, you already had me at Breakout. Adding riot POLARIZES (hint, hint) the tagline towards suggesting the set is more about the prisoners, and less about the guards – which isn’t true.
Another thing that occurred during design was the introduction of the Voidbane during the “design for your worst colour” challenge. I chose Black for Echo_Robin because it seemed the colour least associated with either the prisoners or the guards. I expected to see either the prisoners or the guards stepping in, or for there to be a mix (selfish or traitorous guards, prisoners who are more in control than the guards). At first the Voidbane were an entirely new side. I didn’t care for that, as it harkened back to the death-world, and away from the prison-world. I like that Echo_Robin has listened to my advice, and re-conceptualized the Voidbane as being a deeper, darker part of the prison. They’re prisoners that have made the prison their palace.
I believe that Echo_Robin’s set, from a world-concept, has vastly improved since she first started. A testament to the editing process, and her own writing prowess. I think that any player being presented her world, or tagline, will be excited to play. This means sales and money for Wizards.
Chinkeeyong, or CKY as he is sometimes called, quite possibly one of the cleverest and most intellectual designers these boards have ever seen. As soon as he entered the contest, I had a gut feeling that he’d make his way to the finals. The question was, with what? With SCIENCE it would seem!
“Huh?” I said to myself. I have to admit, the concept sailed over me at first… and at second… and at third! It took a long time for it to become apparent that CKY’s set concept was combo-matters. Until it was spelled out, I was a little bit lost. However, that didn’t stop CKY from conceptualizing a totally new set idea – a science/magic world that was running out of resources, and which needed to plumb the depths of magic in order to survive. A world running out of resources, and which was trying to find potent combinations in order to continue. This made sense to me – I didn’t realize that it would be so literal in the sense of combos-matter.
In all honesty, CKY’s tagline was the one during the contest I liked the least – partly because it felt like he refused to change it. Although the tagline captures the essence of what the set is about mechanically and flavourfully, it doesn’t tell you anything about the world you’re in, doesn’t present a threat, and doesn’t tell you that you need to match up cards for a bonus. Although “discovering the recipe” can be interpreted as discovering card combinations, it sounds more like a Magic Cookbook. I don’t think that cooking is something the average magic-player, or gamer in general, is into – and so this kind of wording will immediately turn some people off. I feel that the tagline could’ve been more dramatic, and more insightful, if it told you what the inhabitants of the world want to do, and put you in their shoes, rather than telling the players what they want to do, and how that happens in the set.
Let me compare this to the new design of car ads. Car adds USED to be more about “here’s the car, here’s the performance, buy it at this price”. That was a very “car-centric” ad. It told people what they want to do, and how the car works. Turned me right off every time. Compare that to new car ads. These ads show happy/cool people in everyday situations, and they happen to be in or using this car. They tell you about the drivers, and put you in their shoes. That turns on my attention. I now want to be like the person in the car.
Your current tagline is very much like the old car ads. It tells me about the set, but that’s it. It doesn’t put me into the set. I think a better tagline for your set would have been “Save a starved world with the power of alchemy!” You’d be identifying a threat and putting the buyer into the shoes of the set’s inhabitants. At the same time, you’d still be communicating the set’s flavour and mechanics.
Your world-concept, on the other hand, I really like! High-science/magic is a realm unexplored by magic. The closest to it has been the Renaissance-like Ravnica, and the Victorian-like Innistrad. An Industrial-like set has yet to be seen, and I think lots of players would be excited to see it. Using the concept of combo-matters I think fits the resource-starved setting very well. Although in basic concept this might be counter-intuitive to some people, you have to look at it from a different perspective to “get-it” during the design process. Players are used to the “base-line” of magic play being cast a spell, get a card/permanent/kill/etc. When you do better than that, you’re achieving “above-par” potential, and that makes players happy. They feel smart and successful, even if they still end up losing the game. However, if you set the “base-line” higher, where players are expecting to get more for their investment, because the mechanics of the set suggest that, then the players will feel like the base-line is higher, and that they exist in a resource-starved atmosphere.
My question is, do players want to feel resource-starved like that? If combo-matters, you need to make it very easy to get the combo-feel. Otherwise you risk making the players feel let down by continually not making “it happen”. I’m happy to say that I think so far in the competition, you have succeeded here. I think that enough things work together, that you would be able to pull this off.
However, at this point I think I have to side with one of the criticisms of the set. While the set does have an overall appeal, it definitely has more of an appeal to the Johnnies of the world. Here’s one of the main questions; does this increase sales, or decrease sales? If you aren’t alienating Timmies or Spikes at all, and their sales stay constant, but the Johnnies buy more, that’s a sales increase. Even if you do alienate Timmy and Spike a little, and Johnnies buy ENOUGH more, that’s a sales increase too (though at a risk that some Timmies and Spikes might not return next set). However, if you alienate Timmy and Spike too much, and/or Johnny doesn’t buy ENOUGH more, that’s a sales decrease, and a continued risk that a number of Timmies and Spikes won’t return, meaning future-value of Magic is also reduced.
This is the discussion that probably happens every time Mark Rosewater proposes a set idea to the board and board’s chairman. How many players do we gain? How many players do we lose? Is there a chance at recovering lost customers? If you can answer these, you’re a smarter man than I. I don’t have access to the facts and figures that Wizards does, and I’m sure they spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars getting exactly that info. My gut feeling is that you’ll lose more customers than you’ll gain – mostly Timmies, which are (in my opinion) the hardest to get back, as they are the ones most swayed by the next big thing. Magic’s done that to its customers before, doing something so bizarre that it lost customers – but it gained enough more to make up the difference. I imagine that this is because the set’s themes were easily graspable by the new entrants. Lorwyn has very familiar tropes. Alara… was not a huge success to me, but multicolour is fun. Zendikar was exploration and then the big-bad Eldrazi fight. Scars of Mirrodin was great for new players, as it presented a conflict with two unique and vastly different sides.
Given that the set’s concept is difficult for beginners to grasp, I think you’ll lose more than you’ll gain – just like Alara Reborn probably lost more than it gained. Alara would be hard to grasp that all-gold is unique, when it’s your first set and, well, everything is gold. In the same way, Solphos would be hard to grasp that all-combo is unique, when it’s your first set and everything combos. Not to mention that it’ll be even MORE difficult for new players “get”. Magic is already very complicated, and this set would likely make it nearly impossible for new players to enter into without massive confusion. That said, the players that you do get (the Johnnies) will be more likely to stay with Magic because they’d get a real feel for it right away, and would look forward to having more combos to work with.
At the end of the day, if this contest was about world-concept and tagline only, I think Echo_Robin would have it. However, this is Master Designer, and so the cards count for most of the weight. Imagining a world is good – being a good enough designer to fill it with interesting and fun cards is better.
Well, I can’t say I ever expected pixies or faeries to be a part of this set, but somehow you made this work! This card is a great reason to have Blue in the “guards” camp, especially with Breakout in the set. The card is effectively “counter target Breakout”, and I can just picture an ogre busting out of a cell, only to get a whiff of pixie-dust, and stagger to the floor asleep. This card also allows you to “counter” lands, as it can cause it to enter the battlefield tapped. Some might call it (faerie name)’s younger sibling, I think this is more like a fraternal twin – doing some things better, and some things worse.
It seems a little low on the costing side of things though. If Magic had ½ mana costs, then 2 and ½ is probably the cost this belongs at. As such, I can still grok it at 2 or 3 mana. I like the single-blue mana on it, nice and splashable, as this should be. This is a straight-up Spike card, which I think is appropriate for this set. Timmy and Johnny will likely spend their time more in the Prisoner-camp, but Spike will be drawn in by cards like this, that are best used by those who can figure out when to best use them. Do I nullify his 2nd land drop on turn 2 to slow him down? Do I wait until I can strike for alpha if he wasn’t able to get a blocker down? Do I stop an aggressive haste-creature? Nice card for Spike that lots of players will “get”, though Spike will enjoy most.
The way this card was first designed, I really did not like. The card seemed to belong to the Guards, but only responded (and responded poorly) to Prisoner tricks. The way it is now makes more sense as a Prisoner, responding to the Guard tricks that are likely to happen.
That said, there are a number of things I don’t like about this card. First, it’s an enchantment that turns to a creature at common. That’s just too complicated a card for common, especially because it can’t do anything if your opponent never plays anything on your turn. I think that was an idea that should’ve been scrapped as soon as the card migrated over to the Prisoner’s camp.
Secondly, how is being an enchantment representing creatures? I think a better action would have been to let this card be cast for a discount if your opponent played a spell on your turn, or else pay a full cost for the card, ala Qasali Ambusher .
Let me go back to that second point in the light of a previous entry you submitted during the last round. The Primal ability was so cool, but remember what I said about wishing that you could always cast it, but just get it at bonus under a certain situation? This card suffers the EXACT same problem. Sometimes you just want a creature out, even if it’s at an exaggerated cost.
Another problem that comes up from the timing of the card is how it gives the card pseudo-summoning-sickness. Most of the time during the set, an opponent will cast instants during combat, or during your end step. That means this guy becomes a creature during your turn, but wasn’t able to attack. It can still tap, unlike regular summoning sickness, but still effectively gets that. I don’t think that’s the idea you’re trying to push with the prisoners. The prisoners are about ACTION, and the regular timing of this guy is very non-action.
I think you this card moved you in the right direction again – minus the Breakout as Instant. This card can be a pinger for a very decent cost, or can be a Shock for Shock’s cost. That makes this card the Shock-equivalent of the set, which is an IMPORTANT card for design to figure out! The fact that you did this, and put it onto a good card that’s interesting, is even better. The set-equivalents aren’t always this nice, so I’m happy you did that.
What am I talking about with Breakout at Instant? Well, I think this is an incredibly bad idea. I wanted to cry out “Nooo!” when I saw Jessica suggest this. Consider Breakout, as a sorcery, before. You could use it only on your turn. This meant that if you cast it, you were attacking with it. This meant that it wasn’t a trap – your opponent could always see it coming. Also, it always meant that you would almost always breakout, then attack. Now, consider Breakout as an instant. First, it can do everything Breakout could before, but it can also be a… blocker? It can as an instant – which just feels wrong for the prisoners… they’re supposed to be getting out, not trying to stop others from doing the same!
Since I’m talking about how bad an idea changing the Breakout to Instant is, I’ll use an example to talk about it. Jessica mentioned making Breakout an Instant so that it was LESS like Unearth. I think that was the wrong way to think about it. In fact, I think the fact that it was LIKE Unearth is what made it a good mechanic! As I said for your last mythic, the Twinning Mage, stealing a good idea is a good idea when it comes to Magic. You want to re-use the stuff that works. Unearth was a really fun mechanic, probably my favourite of the set it was in. You saw it coming, but that didn’t make it any less amazing that you could re-use your creatures for a turn.
If you really wanted this card to be capable of instant-speediness, I would have suggested making Breakout more like Evoke (note, also can only be sorcery-speed, unless the card had Flash). Make it so “instead of paying CARDNAME’s mana cost, you may spend (cost to Breakout). If you do, it gains haste. Sacrifice it at end of turn,”. Then you could simply have given this card Flash, and it would do the same thing, but Breakout’s sanity as a mechanic would’ve been preserved.
I like that you changed the cost on this to instead of having a double-commitment. Double-commitments should be preserved for cards that should only be played in a pretty dedicated deck – and the set’s Shock-equivalent should rarely be like that.
Nice use of the Goblin creature-type by the way! I like how it kills itself if he needs to make the bigger boom!
I like this card! It’s your classic Blink-Effect, which is a more useful tool in this set than in others. A Blink-effect accomplishes a lot more (usually) than a card that simply untaps something. I’ll pose the differences to you, then look at whether the cost and rarity are correct;
Untapping:
- gives a creature Vigilance - lets you re-use tap-abilities - gives you a surprise blocker
Blinking:
- gives a creature Vigilance - lets you re-use enters-the-battlefield abilities - gives you a surprise blocker - saves a creature from a kill-spell or bad combat mix - saves a creature from a previously attached enchantment - removes a previously attached enchantment from an opponent’s creature - counters a pump-spell on an opponent’s creature - prevents a creature from attacking this turn
That’s quite a lot of stuff! Do you want that being an effect you can use at just ? Personally, I think the cost should either be bumped up to , or else only be allowed to target your own creatures, or only allowed to target an opponent’s creatures.
That said, I think this card should actually be a Common in your set rather than a Rare. Part of me wants to say Uncommon because of the potential complexity, but that’s only potential. A card like this can really help teach players about Magic, as they discover more and more uses for it. Even if they don’t get all the uses right away, it’ll still be a useful spell in their mind for the few things it does do. Another good reason to put it at Common is that it can function as the White Counter for the set (other sets usually give white an instant-speed protection or prevention spell that counters a kill-spell or combat trade).
It’s a good card, but I think it could’ve used some work. I can tell from this card that you didn’t try adjusting it much before deciding to include it exactly as it was. Switching rarities with Hidden Hounds (mostly as printed) on this card would’ve been a better idea.
To finish off your cards, you present us with a Black mythic rare. This Empress definitely feels like she is gathering subjects and supporters. I like how it combos with Breakout, regardless of who’s using it. As prisoners are thrown into the Abyss, she has a chance to “collect” them first.
That said, I don’t like how the ability is formatted. The ability works fine as it is, but as a Mythic, I think the top-down design of something like this should reflect more of what the character is doing, rather than what might be simplest. As it’s currently worded, the creature dies, and then is resurrected by Neyra to join her ranks. If that happened, the creature should probably become black, and a zombie in addition to its other creature types. However, I don’t think that’s what’s going on here. Rather, she’s recruiting the soul thrown into the Void to fight alongside her. The creature never “dies”. I would have suggested the following;
“: If target creature dies this turn, gain control of that creature instead.”
This ability would function similarily, but without the bonus of enters-the-battlefield abilities to take place. However, I think it would represent the creature being drafted more than resurrected. I didn’t dock much for this, but I think it’s important to show through this card the difference between Mythics and Rares. Rares tend to do extraordinary things through ordinary Magic lingo. Mythics truly push boundaries, doing extraordinary things through often bizarre and extra-flavourful mechanics.
The most “basic” Mythics I can think of are the M11 Titans (ex. Frost Titan ). Even their simple abilities are based on something you wouldn’t normally see; “enters the battlefield or attacks”.
Hopefully that’s a learning lesson for people about Mythics.
It’s a real shame that this was the replacement card for the Blue common you had here before. That card wasn’t broken except for the Transmute-part of it, and even that was easily fixable by moving the cost up by to . In most sets I would’ve questioned putting an X-cost spell at Common, but this set made sense for it to be there! Science, measurement, alchemy… something like an X-cost instant wouldn’t tip the complexity scales here too much.
That said, the card you’ve replaced it with is still a good card! I have a sneaking suspicion that your un-card “Common Knowledge” inspired you a little here. Count X, draw X is a simple, but powerful, mechanic. Once again, I would normally say such effects shouldn’t fit at Common, but like I said – this is a set ABOUT such effects, so I can’t fault you for doing that here. Also, being an Ingredient itself, you’ll always draw at least 1 card off of this, and on good days you’ll draw 2. On absurd days you’ll draw 3, but the amount of work you’ll need to do to get it to go off like that warrants it’s use.
My only real problem with this card is the Ingredient mechanic. It’s ultra-parasitic. If you’re using this card, you need to dedicate yourself to Ingredients. Although combo is a part of this set, if you’re drawing it in from too many exceedingly different sources, the complexity of the game skyrockets. I take it Ingredients will show up on about 20% of all instants and sorceries in the set. If you do that, that remaining 80% has to make room for names-matter, types-matter, and Transmute. Assuming each of those take up (on average) 20%, that leaves very little room for basic effects.
This card got a lot of people excited, which I think means it’s a good thing! Normally, a 4-mana card for this effect is expensive, but this has to potential to go all over the map! The only thing I don’t like about this is that it’s trying to get players to solve it at the wrong rarity. This card is a puzzle; how do I cast this to get a least 1 damage dealt to all creatures? You need a sorcery or instant to already be in the graveyard for that to happen. If this is the first spell they cast, they are going to have a bad reaction to this card. I think, for that reason, this card belongs at Uncommon. It poses a difficult question to which there is a definite wrong answer.
Everything else about this card rocks! If you don’t have instants or sorceries in your graveyard, you can Transmute it for another one and PUT something in your graveyard! It could probably be costed for better effect. This isn’t an effect you want just any old deck using, and by putting it at two-red you make players commit to it. I also like how players may choose this card late in draft, because of how it needs more cards to go with it, allowing a strategy of picking this card up earlier if you try to force a control-deck (something that I think would be possible in your set because of cards like this).
What’s this card doing here? This is a re-use of a card previously designed during this contest. While I can understand that you want to show me the best stuff, the fact that you are falling back on this card signals to me that you don’t have a lot of ideas left for making Green work in this set. While I won’t argue that it’s a good card – I really like it actually – I can’t accept it. I did have an idea for making the last round one where you re-designed earlier cards that I thought were failures, but I didn’t go that route, and even if I had, this card wasn’t a failure.
What’s worse – you substituted this card in for Scrollmites! Everyone loved Scrollmites! I loved Scrollmites! Scrollmites were cute and hilarious and almost but not quite broken! They were a card that could be enjoyed by Timmy, Johnny, and Spike all at the same time! Timmy would love having “Lotsa creatures! Har har!”. Johnny would love “I have so many creatures to sacrifice or bring onto the battlefield for shenanigans!”. Spike would love “I have lots of potential attackers with a card that is effective during turns 1 through 5, great for an aggro or control deck!”
For shame Chinkeeyong. For shame.
For those who think this card is broken, consider these MASSIVE difference between Scrollmites and Squadron Hawk.
#1 – Scrollmites have no evasion. That’s a huge difference. Evasion is one of the things that makes Squadron Hawk so powerful. Minus the “cast from library” clause, this card is a vanilla 1/1.
#2 – Scrollmites doesn’t find other Scrollmites. When you cast one from your hand, it doesn’t trigger its own ability. You need something to enable it. Even if that’s a simple sac-me land.
#3 – Any Scrollmites you don’t cast stay in your library. This means that it’s a “use it or lose it” mechanic. Unlike Squadron hawk, which brings everyone to your hand for use whenever you can do it.
A great card, at the right rarity, which was costed right, was flavourful for the set, and could have made every demographic happy… I can’t believe you cut that!
Upgraded One With Nothing . I think this card was better when it simply found the card you need, but then it would effectively be a standard reprint of Demonic Tutor . Forcing you to wait a turn changes this card from very, very good to very, very bad (MOST of the time). There’s still ways around it, but you gotta dig for it.
So where do I place this? On the one hand, I think this is a good “crap-rare” – it will get Johnnies excited. I think I would keep and print this card, but I think I was hoping for a different black rare if you were deciding to change it to be like this.
Wow, what a powerful creature. Your opponent has to alpha-strike or have vigilance in order to attack, and the same goes for you. I’m happy this was changed from before (else it was wayy too repeatable of a Day of Judgement ).
This card is a comboist’s dream. It protects you for as long as it’s out, so you can combo out. Is it too powerful in a dedicated control deck though? Maybe. Control decks want to hold their cards back as much as possible, building up a base. This makes that strategy pay off even more – to the extent that it’s overpowerful?
Hrm…
I actually think so.
I’m rarely think that. The reason I feel that this is too powerful is that it rewards play too much for NOT playing Magic. The more you hold back, the better this card does.
WOW. That’s a lot of print so far! 14 pages of text!
Congratulations Echo_Robin! You really deserve it! Throughout this entire contest you pushed your card concepts, your world-concept, and you excelled at each point!
You didn’t always submit the best cards, and you went through a TON of revisions – but at the end of the day it was worth-it! You have advanced your skills at designing SO MUCH during this competition, that I really must take my hat off to you!
The biggest thing was this constant revising and improving. You were willing to look at what people suggested, and what the crowd wanted, and designed for that. You put your own feelings aside, and decided that you were going to just focus on making good cards – even if they weren’t always following the way you thought cards should be made.
I think your set is the most likely to see print, is the most inviting, and your tagline catches players the most. I would be excited to play your set!
The biggest tipping point was the cards though. Your final set of cards was, over all, BETTER than Chinkeeyong’s. Despite that I hate Breakout at Instant, I feel that your cards and set are, altogether, simply more printable than Chinkeeyong’s. You could do well to follow some of Chinkeeyong’s design principles and continue learning from them, but I think you deserve to be crowned,
MASTER DESIGNER.
CONTEST CLOSED – MASTER DESIGNER 2 WILL RETURN IN THE FUTURE. UNTIL THEN, KEEP A LOOK-OUT FOR Y-CONTEST; RED VS BLUE.
+1: Each player reveals his or her hand until your next turn.
+3: Each player draws 3 cards.
-9: You receive an emblem that says, "At the beginning of each upkeep, search your library, graveyard, hand, and cards in exile for a card. You may play that card without paying its mana cost."
Loyalty: 2
I am a Rules Advisor as of This Date: Aug 13/2010
Reminder text will tell somebody "(You are stupid. Have less fun.)" -WotC_dlaugel
Well done, Echo_Robin! I really liked your world from the beginning, and your cards, I think, turned out very nice. You certainly deserved to win.
Well done, Chinkeeyong, as well, though! Your set was incredibly ambitious, I thought, and though I think it's pretty 'out there' for the average player, I was really impressed with what you did with it. Plus, you certainly gave Johnny something to dream about!
Finally, WELL DONE, YARIUM! Some people throw contests together and just sort of 'see what happens,' but you clearly put a lot of thought and time into yours in order to make an interesting, innovative and fun (albeit difficult) contest. I was really interested in seeing what people would come up with, and I wasn't disappointed! Thanks!
I look forward to seeing what comes from the next one.
I thought Metastatic Mass was a better showcase of the set than Scroll Mites. The Mites didn't really tell you anything about the set, but Metastatic Mass sent a clear message about the way the set would play. Still, I'm very happy that I made it to the finals at all. Congratulations to Echo_Robin!
Think of how Neo couldn't beat the robots, but they kept him around anyways to defeat Agent Smith. Sure, the robots might not like having a Neo running rampant because instead of playing their favorite 4 drop fatty robot, they have to play a bunch of one mana Matrixs to contain him, but at least Neo keeps Agent Smith from reanimating an Iona on turn two.
I really enjoy imagining this from Kevin's perspective. Because in Kevin's world, Rosewater actually reads everything he types. Mark is sitting there right now, reading this, and thinking "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled. . ." Or some such. He chuckles low, then clicks on "The Best Of KEVINSET" and says "Yes, this'll do just fine. A busty lady with banding who deals direct damage to Zones!? Why this will be the star of my next set, and no one will ever believe you Kevin." Then he closes his Macbook, so his servant may move it out of the way, while another servant puts a Fetal Richard Garfield Clone lathered in Steak Sauce in front of him. Then Mark Feasts.
I mean, In KevinWorld, Mark is reading the very words I'm typing as well. Heck, in KevinWorld maybe I am Mark.
[In response to a thread about how hard grading is]
Upon reading this, I've found myself completely unable to operate in the world. I tried to decide what to eat for breakfast, and pondered the vast consequences of my choice. How do I balance my dietary needs against my desire to eat good-tasting food? Should I factor in how long it takes to prepare? Cereal is ready in moments, but bacon takes longer to cook.
Then there is the impact on other industries. Do people in the cereal industry deserve to be employed more than people in the bacon industry? Which industry should I support? I don't even have the data regarding HOW MUCH the cereal industry benefits from me eating a bowl of cereal, or how much the bacon industry benefits from me eating a side of bacon. How can I compare two qualities I can't even quantify?
And let's not forget the milk on the cereal. In addition to determining whether or not milk is healthy for me, how much that benefits the milk industry, and how much the people in the milk industry deserve my support, we have to factor in the fact that cows are put under brutal conditions in order to collect thier milk. Of course, the same goes for the pigs, and then they get killed. Of course, I really like bacon. So I need to come up with a scale that compares the value of cow happiness to pig happiness to my happiness. What trade-offs am I willing to make here? Does the fact that the pig gets put out of its misery count as a plus or a minus? Isn't bacon bad for me anyway?
Deciding what to eat for breakfast (or any meal) is impossible. Help me!
Anyway, you'd be surprised about Time Stop. When I first saw that card as a relatively new player I didn't see its full potential until I read the reminder text. Is it that unintuitive, though? Mine I mean. What is possibility? Is it possible for me to type these words with my tusks? No, because I don't have tusks. Although I am now tempted to go buy some - obviously not from poachers or whatever - and use them as typing apparatus. I could be the best secretary ever. "What's your words per minute sir?" "Well, only six, but I use these tusks to type them." "You're hired!" That was the interview. And is anyone else disappointed that "apparati" is not the plural form of apparatus? I just could strangle a dictionary, because "apparatuses" is a real word. I guess it sounds pretty cool. I'll call them my Apparatusks.
