Brawl #6 - Round 3 - Voting

[1011686]

Royalty/Wizard: TG and S7 have cards that whose gameplay actually feels like a “trap”, and TG has the clearly best writing among all teams in this task.  FROGS and S7 have similarly competent writing, so FROGS will receive 3 points, and S7 2 for the slight edge.
Voints: TG 10, FROGS 3, S7 2

that only adds up to 15.

[worldwideweb3]

ROYALTY


SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS: I can see it working as a trap irl, but as a card, it was pretty OP. It did get good voints, simply because there weren't many that were a trap.

TTG: Pretty good card all round. Maybe increase the cost a bit.

Frogs: Good card, though not sure how it can be used as a trap irl. (I had to take a point off due to this - blame Jenk)

Pyro: Too OP, especially in fire.

BARD

SSSSSSSSSSSSS: umm, what is it? I guess the purple thing is the portal, and the man is the keeper?

FROGS: I like it. Can see it as a guardian in real life too.

TTG: I do like the art quite a bit, but can't picture it next to a dragon as a minion....doesn't seem too realistic

Pyro: Pixel is not really my thing (deja vu?), though i appreciate the art and the idea. (MULTI DEJA VU?)

CRUSADER
Lel, 3 teams used the similar idea, so that hampered them. Pyro had an original deck, but didn't find it a better deck than the rest of them. Voints given here to all teams were similar.

ENCHANTER

One idea for teams is to have a sample deck with your cards too. Just a brief idea is sufficient too. Shows that you have put thought into how card can work with other cards in the game.

Pyro: I liked the idea, though maybe it's a little on the OP side. But maybe as a dragon minion, that's fine.

FROGS: I thought there was only 1 dragon to defend? But as a card, it's reasonably well balanced, and all.

SSSSSSSSSS: Uhh, idk. Looked really OP at the first sight. Essentially making 5 strongest creatures in the opponents deck useless...

TTG: Again, a bit too OP.

Scribe

SSSSSSSSS: Pretty good. Though i would like to see a few numbers in there.

TTG: Seemed interesting, and well written though i'm not sure of the practicality....28 L of water does weigh quite a bit.

Pyro: Didn't seem as proffessional. A bit confusing and couldn't quite work out what the armour was made of. My guess is polyester (with that plastic), and steel wool making the fibres.

FROGS: The hotter than hell thing didn't look great in there at all.

Wizard

Did anyone watch the movie Butterfly effect? If not, do so, it is a pretty good movie.

SSSSSSSSSS: The BE was misunderstood i think, despite the story being interesting.

Frogs: BE was again misunderstood.

TTG: Nearly there but not quite. BE is like a small change leading to many small changes resulting in a difference. But the story was good, and did gain some voints.

Pyro: Yes, BE was clearly shown here. The first paragraph actually made me think of dragon ball super....does the writer watch it too?

[Jenkar]

SSSSSSSSSS: Uhh, idk. Looked really OP at the first sight. Essentially making 5 strongest creatures in the opponents deck useless...

In the notes :
"Any use of the ability counts, even if they come from two different gate keepers."
If you're using 2 gate keepers, target one type of creature with one, and then another type with the other, only the second type can't be played.

Unless you meant the 5 of the strongest type, in which case without cc i would tend to agree, but there are ways of avoiding (play a few at once) and keep in mind you're unlikely to draw all your costly strong creatures in one play.

[Aves]

TTG: Nearly there but not quite. BE is like a small change leading to many small changes resulting in a difference. But the story was good, and did gain some voints.

The butterfly effect is the concept that small causes can have large effects

The most common depictions are of many small changes, sure, but at its heart it's just that a small thing causes a significant change.

[worldwideweb3]

Yh, i mean 5 of the strongest type. Usually decks have 6 copies of one creature, and maybe a few other support ones. If the main one is locked down, even for a couple turns, its gg probably.

[Hyroen]

Feedback on the tasks below. I will take questions, though I will not change the points given.

Voint allocation will not be discussed. I will do my best to stick to a voint scheme of 4-3-2-1. Unless otherwise mentioned, this is the voint scheme used.

Spoiler for Royalty & Wizard:

Royalty: Create a card that represents a trap that the Dragon has placed to impede your progress!
Wizard: One of the members of your team falls into the trap. Explain how you could travel back in time and start a series of events to stop this from happening, using the butterfly effect!
Time is a tricky thing. I'm at the very least expecting to see that a team member falls into the trap, but I certainly hope it's not your royalty. You know, the one that everyone looks up to for some reason? More than that, I want to not only read the story but feel it.

TG - Definitely one of the stronger submissions, again. On the card design side, not all that impressed. A niche card that serves as a trap for Brawl plot purposes, but a little convoluted with silly mechanics too. Would Elite Skeletons only do 1 damage as well? The story on the other hand, beautifully told, I could almost feel the soot and I enjoyed how incorporated tentacle aspects were in its entirety. Though by the end of the story,  you still had to sacrifice the dog. Woudl've enjoyed something a little more humane. I understand you're looking out for the team, but the dog. :c

Fr - Interesting card design, but poor execution of mechanic wording and element choice. At first I thought it was essentially a Cloak you were giving your opponent. There is a reason Darkness has this card and its effects to be used for itself (and even then, is seldom used). Mechanics should ideally be clear and easily understood even from card text, while trivia interactions should be included in notes, but there should be no confusion about what the card does at first glance. As per the wording, your opponent's field should also be invisible to you, but it's not. Furthermore, why is an element such as Light in the business of hiding as opposed to revealing? In classical thought this is counterintuitive in terms of design and would not be part of what I would think the playstyle of Light. Though some things can be hidden because there is such a strong focus of something in the limelight that other things are almost not even seen, it's definitely not coming across in the card name or card mechanic. In terms of the story, it minimally got the job done, but you also mention that you've defeated the Red Dragon's minions. Have you? All of them? I hope this doesn't bite you back in the near future.

P - Inelegant card design to start off with, not to mention that this sort of card is highly redundant with Rain of Fire, already a part of the game. Of course this card has the potential to deal much more damage, but there is something about the 3-5 damage range that is vital and quite frankly, anything more than that is in 90% of the cases, just overkill. I'm glad there's some elemental affinity, but it is only a cherry on top of something that doesn't go down well to begin with. I did, however, enjoy the story. It has a lightness to it that really captured how even the slightest change could save someone's life in indirect ways. Unfortunately I was a bit disappointed that a Leader didn't have enough precaution to check for tripwires and walked naively right into the wire with as much preparation as they had for this task.

S7 - I see someone's been reading the Monthly Mechanics thread. I'm almost biased towards this submission just for that, however there are some details I might want clarified in the notes such as its interactions with its own elements' Immateriality and spawned Singularities (huehue). Having said that, the mechanic is very clear and leaves the decision in the hands of the victim. It's clever. The story on the other hand, while it was decently told, it was just blunt, very blunt. This happened, then this happened. There was a comedic tone to it because of the backfiring of the trap, but I'm not sure if that was exactly what the task asked for.  Whether X or Y falling into the trap, if they are both a part of your team, you haven't technically avoided a member falling into it. You've just avoided a particular member from doing so. Also, could've easily been interpreted as a Darkness card, and in my opinion that was a bit of a miss.

Spoiler for Bard & Enchanter:

Enchanter: Design a powerful minion that the Dragon would rely on during a battle! The minion must be a creature card and remember, the Dragon only accepts the most powerful, most evil beings to assist it!
Bard: Show us what this minion looks like - make art for the card!

Voint distribution: 3 3 2 2

I should firstly say I'm holding Enchanter tasks to a much higher standard and will analyze them with more refined scrutiny than other tasks. As a Card Curator I am specifically looking for card designs that would make sense for the task and for inclusion in EtG.

TG - Card mechanic: so much yes. It's a card that's a game changer. Then again, it has a level of certainty that surprises me from an Entropy card. I might prefer turn-ending mechanics in either Time or Gravity. Lovely card art too. Strong art, though the elemental housing is a bit off-putting. Still a solid card, all in all.

Fr - Yay! More of a meta push towards Rainbows! <- sarcasm. Definitely an appropriately housed card, as portals and gates are definitely an Aether thing. I do see the mechanic being a significant one in the game however, it may be a little too strong. Maybe a toggle-able doubling of card cost might be more reasonable and not as shutting down of entire decks. That art though, eek. Not even sure what I'm looking at. I do see a frog though. But it seems like Kermit's lesser known nephew, Tiny Tad.

P - With a great pixel artist comes great pixel art, again. Now in terms of card design, it's just a bit uninspired. CC + DoT? Eh. Now if they were CC + adding (1) Poison counter to the opponent due to a Smog "attack" you might have my attention. I'm enjoying that it's a Fire card, but I'm not sure it's an element that needs more CC, but instead a way of making use of it as a win condition. A little lacklustre overall.

S7 - Self-sacrificing Darkness creature... err, sure? Also, why are dragons buffs now in the domain of Darkness? I'm enjoying the mechanic, don't get me wrong. I do think there's a large enough of a Dragon category of cards to see some interesting use from this card, but it seems oddly interpreted. And the art is less impressive overall than the mechanic interpretation. But that cape though, points for the cape. Having said that I was hoping not to see a submission whose primary strength is a cape. Nicht gut.

Spoiler for Crusader:

Task: As you prepare to attack some of the Dragon's minions, you hear a battlecry behind you. It's things you've never seen before, but they are here to help you fight!
Build an unupped deck in Cygnia. It must use at least 10 copies of cards that do not exist in Elements, and it must be able to beat Mages (the 2nd tier of AI enemy).

Voint distribution: 4 3 3 0

Specifically, I would like to see an effective deck on its own right that does what the task requires. In this case, it's not too difficult to beat the 2nd tier, so any higher is definitely a plus. Elemental affinity, again, is a cherry on top.

TG - Solid deck + a sprinkling of Water. Very nice. As a deck however, it will likely run into the same walls as any beatstick deck, despite its solid and persistent nature. Screenshots, as usual, make me love the submission more.

Fr - Another beatstick deck? Yay. So much similarity to the TG submission. Though the elemental affinity of Life makes more sense here, their submission was a bit stronger in terms of presentation and, almost assuredly, in the strength and resilience of the deck.

P - Half-finished submission is half finished. For those unfamiliar with Cygnia, we don't know what some cards do, as such a bit more of an explanation would've been nice. What this means is that

S7 - Another Fungus + Survival Trait deck. Did you guys all work together? Haha. Also, Screens or Screen? Hm. More screenshots > less screenshots, but you have a screenshot so I'll let it slide this once. Mainly because there was an incomplete task. Make the strength believable.

Spoiler for Scribe:

Task: The breath of a dragon is so hot that it'll turn your troops to sticks of charcoal coated in the slush of their molten armor.
Write a scientific article detailing the design/creation of a new armor material that won't melt!

Voint distribution: 4 2 2 2

I've read scientific articles before. They usually have statistical methods and confidence intervals. You can include these or at the very least pretend you know what they are. Considering there's a variety of ages in our community I would expect someone would know what they look like. In any case, Google is a thing. The more snooty and daunting, the better, but concision is still a thing. A fine balance between science and comprehension. Here we go.

TG - Someone has definitely seen what a scientific article looks like. Strong submission and clever flavour text. 'Project Steam Machine': so much yes.

Fr - This is not a news story, it's a scientific article. These are not headlines. As a matter of fact you're looking to inform the scientific community about the design/creation, not the masses. Informative yes, but not catered enough. Also, I know for fact that mathman knows about materials! There are so many conflating terms that I'm not sure if this is a design, creation or discovery. You are detailing a design or creation and not a discovery. I'm not quite sure if you can, technically speaking, create an element. In theory, elements already exist and we know about their existence or hypothesize that they can exist and from there discover them. Dmitri Mendeleev is a name we should know at this point and precision with our use of terminology is a must.

P - Looks like a story more than anything else. Not a fan.

S7 - Is this a scientific article or a diary entry? Not quite what I expected. Colourful and detailed, but not the format I'm looking for from a scientific article.

All feedback up.

[Fippe94]

Updated my previous post with more votes

[Lunaris]

I'm not quite sure if you can, technically speaking, create an element.

There are man-made elements, such as polonium.

[Espithel]

TG - Card mechanic: so much yes. It's a card that's a game changer. Then again, it has a level of certainty that surprises me from an Entropy card. I might prefer turn-ending mechanics in either Time or Gravity. Lovely card art too. Strong art, though the elemental housing is a bit off-putting. Still a solid card, all in all.

It was going to be a psychotic/delirious ooze that broke people's concentration, but I fell asleep.

[Hyroen]

I have since been informed that I've confused the Fr and S7 submissions for the Bard & Enchanter task, which is absolutely true. My apologies.

I would ask Brawlmasters to change this, but I'm perfectly ok with this either way. The point difference was minimal, (2) though I guess where the point advantage would've been going to S7, it went to Fr. Well deserved. I do appreciate things like elemental affinity, and incorporating your team's theme into your art. In this case it almost seemed like both teams were representing the other, so take the random error. At a later point I may correct this and swap the scores of S7 and Fr by a total of 2 in the other direction. Or not, we'll see.

There are man-made elements, such as polonium.

Did we invent those elements or discover them?