And now I realize that the window for the attack damage dropped to a smaller size. Oof, I’ll edit it when I wake up. Penalty it is I guess.
Contest Autumn 2018 CaC: Counters & Markers! (Results Up!)
- Thread starter Jabberwock
- Start date
https://www.deviantart.com/teamaqua...e-Fixed-774709061?ga_submit_new=10:1543574331
Invoke that edit penalty.
Invoke that edit penalty.
Aaaaaand that's the deadline (as of 5.5 hours ago Dx)! Fortunately, no one submitted past it, though, so we're good. 
As a reminder, with our new quarterly schedule, we'll be taking this month (December) to judge the entries, so as to have them all up before the next contest begins. Stay tuned for the results this month, and the next contest on January 1!
As a reminder, with our new quarterly schedule, we'll be taking this month (December) to judge the entries, so as to have them all up before the next contest begins. Stay tuned for the results this month, and the next contest on January 1!
This will be reflected in your paycheck, Jabber.Aaaaaand that's the deadline (as of 5.5 hours ago Dx)! Fortunately, no one submitted past it, though, so we're good.
...We don't have paychecks? We should.
I'm really excited for judging on this one, and I've enjoyed reading people's entries during this competition, it's been a much longer wait due to the change to seasonal competitions so I can't wait for the results. Good luck to everyone, of course.
Ofc we do, we all get paid in unceasing verbal deluges of glowing adoration and also chocolate chip cookies. ^.^
I really wanted to tag you around 4 hours after the deadline to end the contest officially, but held back. Good luck on the judging while I focus on drawing manga for the next month. Part of me wants to sign up for judging too, but I’d rather compete each time although I know I can’t win as easily as others with the program I use.Aaaaaand that's the deadline (as of 5.5 hours ago Dx)! Fortunately, no one submitted past it, though, so we're good.
As a reminder, with our new quarterly schedule, we'll be taking this month (December) to judge the entries, so as to have them all up before the next contest begins. Stay tuned for the results this month, and the next contest on January 1!
Oh, I see. Either you're hogging all my adoration, or you're taking the cookies. Knowing you, I'm left wondering why I haven't been complimented yet...
Hey, I think it's better to compete not thinking about winning anyways. The reason I've been a part of CaC at every opportunity this year is to see myself and other people get better with their work. Entering constantly allows you to get more and more advice on how to improve your work.
Text-Based Results
Judge: @Lord o da rings
Well, I’m certainly honoured to be a judge for this wonderful competition! Though recently I haven’t been an active participant in the competitions, I’m thankful that you decided to give me a chance. This quarterly’s theme, the first competition in the new quarterly format, was counters and markers, a complex theme I’d never explored in my own personal fakes. But after reviewing all of your unique cards, I have something to say about all of them! I tried including references wherever I believed they were necessary or where I could so you see the actual source material yourself. Thanks for allowing me the honor of judging this quarter, it’s been a pleasure!
@Anime Psyclone
@FourteenAlmonds
@VioletValkyrie
Darkrai GX
@Luplayz
@Lord Goomy
@A Dragon of Destiny
@pikachuuuu101
@FlashRayquaza
@GamePhoenix
@Vom
Deoxys GX
@Nyora
Hoopa GX
@SmiteKnight
3rd Place: FlashRayquaza’s touching Togetic ex, with 42/50 points.
2nd Place: Nyora’s hazardous Hoopa GX, with 43/50 points.
1st Place: VioletValkyrie’s dusky Darkrai GX, with 46/50 points.
Judge: @Lord o da rings
Well, I’m certainly honoured to be a judge for this wonderful competition! Though recently I haven’t been an active participant in the competitions, I’m thankful that you decided to give me a chance. This quarterly’s theme, the first competition in the new quarterly format, was counters and markers, a complex theme I’d never explored in my own personal fakes. But after reviewing all of your unique cards, I have something to say about all of them! I tried including references wherever I believed they were necessary or where I could so you see the actual source material yourself. Thanks for allowing me the honor of judging this quarter, it’s been a pleasure!
@Anime Psyclone
Creativity: (9/20)
Perish Song immediately grabs your attention. It’s something that’s never been exactly translated into the card game, but that’s for a very good reason. But, using the markers theme to try it shows gears are turning, so kudos! But Grudge is completely vanilla, and that’s never fun.
Wording: (8/15)
“When you use this Attack” should be removed. [-1 points] (This phrase has not been used in 15 years.)
“place” -> “put” [-1 point] (Dusknoir, BUS 53)
“Perish counter” -> “Perish marker” since these markers don’t add up and are directly linked to a future event [-2 points] (Gardevoir-ex, DF 93)
“every Pokémon in play” -> “all Pokémon in play” [-1 point] (Delphox, FCO 13)
“At this point” should be removed. [-1 point] (Magearna, LOT 131)
“swap” -> “switch” [-1 point] (Tapu Koko, LOT 85)
Believability: (7/15)
This is absolutely bonkers. The game’s not capable of keeping track of effects like this, not for 5 turns, even with the counters. I don’t want to say this is broken, but the complex wording and overall effects of the attack just make this a seemingly ridiculous card. HP is also obscenely high, all Misdreavus are within 50-60 HP and this is nearly double that.
Dex Stats are missing. [-1 point]
Final Thoughts:
Overall, you occasionally got a bit creative and the final product is ultimately not game breaking, but the wording was just way trippy, confusing, and at parts outdated, not to mention the mechanics with the game don’t work at all. After looking at the results from past months this seems like a recurring theme for you, so I’d prioritize trying to make your wording as clean, clear, and accurate as possible in the future.
Final Score: 24/50
Perish Song immediately grabs your attention. It’s something that’s never been exactly translated into the card game, but that’s for a very good reason. But, using the markers theme to try it shows gears are turning, so kudos! But Grudge is completely vanilla, and that’s never fun.
Wording: (8/15)
“When you use this Attack” should be removed. [-1 points] (This phrase has not been used in 15 years.)
“place” -> “put” [-1 point] (Dusknoir, BUS 53)
“Perish counter” -> “Perish marker” since these markers don’t add up and are directly linked to a future event [-2 points] (Gardevoir-ex, DF 93)
“every Pokémon in play” -> “all Pokémon in play” [-1 point] (Delphox, FCO 13)
“At this point” should be removed. [-1 point] (Magearna, LOT 131)
“swap” -> “switch” [-1 point] (Tapu Koko, LOT 85)
Believability: (7/15)
This is absolutely bonkers. The game’s not capable of keeping track of effects like this, not for 5 turns, even with the counters. I don’t want to say this is broken, but the complex wording and overall effects of the attack just make this a seemingly ridiculous card. HP is also obscenely high, all Misdreavus are within 50-60 HP and this is nearly double that.
Dex Stats are missing. [-1 point]
Final Thoughts:
Overall, you occasionally got a bit creative and the final product is ultimately not game breaking, but the wording was just way trippy, confusing, and at parts outdated, not to mention the mechanics with the game don’t work at all. After looking at the results from past months this seems like a recurring theme for you, so I’d prioritize trying to make your wording as clean, clear, and accurate as possible in the future.
Final Score: 24/50
@FourteenAlmonds
Creativity: (14/20)
The concept behind Swarm is interesting, powering up slow and steady as the Pokémon slowly gets stronger is a nifty concept, and the counters here are an interesting way to allow this to go on for multiple turns and allow buildup. This is definitely good use of the theme and for that this is good. The rather conventional attack takes new meaning when held together with these counters, and shedding light on a familiar effect is something I think you managed to do really well here.
Wording: (12/15)
“Fury marker” -> “Fury counter” [-2 points] since these add up over time, they’re counters instead of markers, which generally are linked to future effects
“active” should be capitalized [-1 point]
Believability: (15/15)
This is definitely an interesting card. I would say this is problematic since it can add up to decent damage, but this is also a pretty low HP card. I wouldn’t say it’s broken, necessarily.
Final Thoughts:
Your effects here were quite tasteful and you utilized the theme well to create a well structured and synergized card.
Final Score: 41/50
The concept behind Swarm is interesting, powering up slow and steady as the Pokémon slowly gets stronger is a nifty concept, and the counters here are an interesting way to allow this to go on for multiple turns and allow buildup. This is definitely good use of the theme and for that this is good. The rather conventional attack takes new meaning when held together with these counters, and shedding light on a familiar effect is something I think you managed to do really well here.
Wording: (12/15)
“Fury marker” -> “Fury counter” [-2 points] since these add up over time, they’re counters instead of markers, which generally are linked to future effects
“active” should be capitalized [-1 point]
Believability: (15/15)
This is definitely an interesting card. I would say this is problematic since it can add up to decent damage, but this is also a pretty low HP card. I wouldn’t say it’s broken, necessarily.
Final Thoughts:
Your effects here were quite tasteful and you utilized the theme well to create a well structured and synergized card.
Final Score: 41/50
@VioletValkyrie
Darkrai GX
Creativity: (17/20)
I am in love with this card oh my word. Both the ability and attack are completely built around these counters, you made incredible use of the the theme and clearly explored it fully. Veil of Madness is interesting in that it takes awhile to build up, but this a wild way of penalizing your opponents for using Supporters. Moonlit Purge gives you solid control and allows you to manipulate your situation as you please, and while relying on the counters makes for some great synergy.
Wording: (14/15)
“Whenever either player” -> “Whenever any player” [-1 point] (Thunder Mountain ♢, LOT 191)
Believability: (15/15)
Veil of Madness is handicapped by the fact it’s a coin toss and that already strips this of being too busted. The GX attack gives you tons of control over the game state, and in most cases resets a lot of the game, but that’s why they exist so I can’t really dock points for that. Overall this is a very solid entry, nice job.
Final Thoughts:
This was a treat, Violet. Tasteful exploration of the theme while keeping everything within a reasonable power level. Amazing job.
Final Score: 46/50
I am in love with this card oh my word. Both the ability and attack are completely built around these counters, you made incredible use of the the theme and clearly explored it fully. Veil of Madness is interesting in that it takes awhile to build up, but this a wild way of penalizing your opponents for using Supporters. Moonlit Purge gives you solid control and allows you to manipulate your situation as you please, and while relying on the counters makes for some great synergy.
Wording: (14/15)
“Whenever either player” -> “Whenever any player” [-1 point] (Thunder Mountain ♢, LOT 191)
Believability: (15/15)
Veil of Madness is handicapped by the fact it’s a coin toss and that already strips this of being too busted. The GX attack gives you tons of control over the game state, and in most cases resets a lot of the game, but that’s why they exist so I can’t really dock points for that. Overall this is a very solid entry, nice job.
Final Thoughts:
This was a treat, Violet. Tasteful exploration of the theme while keeping everything within a reasonable power level. Amazing job.
Final Score: 46/50
@Luplayz
Creativity: (13/20)
Forcing bench sitters is interesting, I suppose. It gives you lots of leverage that your opponent loses as you’re taking away their flexibility little by little, but I’ll talk about this a bit more later. The attack is overall not great, and is rehashed from similar concepts, but I see where you’re trying to go with this.
Wording: (11/15)
“to 1 of your Pokémon put a” needs a comma between “Pokémon” and “put” [-1 point]
The parentheses aren’t necessary [-1 point]
“Barrier Marker” -> “Barrier marker” [-1 point] (Gardevoir-ex, DF 93)
“remove” should be capitalized, first word in the sentence [-1 point]
Believability: (6/15)
This is gamebreaking, period. The markers can be removed but there’s no reason for you to ever remove them, the attack is incredibly weak. 50 damage total after 5 turns of building up markers and locking your opponent into certain decisions is never worth it. And with no clause saying this must be your Active Pokémon, benchsitting is highly encouraged. Play some energy, give it a few turns, and you’ll have won the game.
Missing “Basic/Stage 1” making this unplayable by default [-2 points]
Missing Dex Stats [-1 point]
Final Thoughts:
This was interesting to look at for sure, but this just breaks itself with both what’s actually on the card and what type of playing behavior it encourages. Your wording is largely okay, it’s mostly small errors, so I think advice there is to proofread and make sure everything makes sense there.
Final Score: 30/50
Forcing bench sitters is interesting, I suppose. It gives you lots of leverage that your opponent loses as you’re taking away their flexibility little by little, but I’ll talk about this a bit more later. The attack is overall not great, and is rehashed from similar concepts, but I see where you’re trying to go with this.
Wording: (11/15)
“to 1 of your Pokémon put a” needs a comma between “Pokémon” and “put” [-1 point]
The parentheses aren’t necessary [-1 point]
“Barrier Marker” -> “Barrier marker” [-1 point] (Gardevoir-ex, DF 93)
“remove” should be capitalized, first word in the sentence [-1 point]
Believability: (6/15)
This is gamebreaking, period. The markers can be removed but there’s no reason for you to ever remove them, the attack is incredibly weak. 50 damage total after 5 turns of building up markers and locking your opponent into certain decisions is never worth it. And with no clause saying this must be your Active Pokémon, benchsitting is highly encouraged. Play some energy, give it a few turns, and you’ll have won the game.
Missing “Basic/Stage 1” making this unplayable by default [-2 points]
Missing Dex Stats [-1 point]
Final Thoughts:
This was interesting to look at for sure, but this just breaks itself with both what’s actually on the card and what type of playing behavior it encourages. Your wording is largely okay, it’s mostly small errors, so I think advice there is to proofread and make sure everything makes sense there.
Final Score: 30/50
@Lord Goomy
Creativity: (14/20)
Ripple Effect is nothing new, but it’s better than vanilla. Curse of the Black Pearl on the other hand is a wild, zany effect. From the looks of it it’s quite out there, but there’s a problem with it that makes it hard to evaluate.
Wording: (12/15)
The second sentence in Curse of the Black Pearl can be fixed to Each Pokémon with a Black Pearl marker on it takes 30 more damage or 3 more damage counters from an opponent's [P] Pokémon's attack that does damage to or puts damage counters on more than 1 Pokémon.”, but this is still a rather awkward effect [-2 points]
“Only 1 Black Pearl marker can be on a Pokémon at a time.” is not necessary, markers don’t - accumulate [-1 point]
Believability: (8/15)
20 damage to every Benched Pokémon and the Active Pokémon for just [C] is way too much, [C][C] maybe but even then that’s powerful for only a regular Stage 1. Curse of the Black Pearl is also not wording-wise terrible but the effect is just too awkward and ridiculous to ever be printed. The strangeness of damage/counters both being used is too hard to miss, and the restrictions and details around usage make this a complicated effect that likely wouldn’t ever be printed.
Missing Dex Stats [-1 point]
Though you mentioned it evolves from Spoink you don’t mention it’s a Stage 1 [-1 point]
Final Thoughts:
I think you’ve shown you can put in the work, Goomy! And when it comes to the little things your wording is great, it’s the more complex concepts you have room to improve on. Make sure the words you’re using appear on cards that’ve been printed in recent years, as well as be sure things in your card are reasonably balanced, and are clear and sensible!
Final Score: 32/50
Ripple Effect is nothing new, but it’s better than vanilla. Curse of the Black Pearl on the other hand is a wild, zany effect. From the looks of it it’s quite out there, but there’s a problem with it that makes it hard to evaluate.
Wording: (12/15)
The second sentence in Curse of the Black Pearl can be fixed to Each Pokémon with a Black Pearl marker on it takes 30 more damage or 3 more damage counters from an opponent's [P] Pokémon's attack that does damage to or puts damage counters on more than 1 Pokémon.”, but this is still a rather awkward effect [-2 points]
“Only 1 Black Pearl marker can be on a Pokémon at a time.” is not necessary, markers don’t - accumulate [-1 point]
Believability: (8/15)
20 damage to every Benched Pokémon and the Active Pokémon for just [C] is way too much, [C][C] maybe but even then that’s powerful for only a regular Stage 1. Curse of the Black Pearl is also not wording-wise terrible but the effect is just too awkward and ridiculous to ever be printed. The strangeness of damage/counters both being used is too hard to miss, and the restrictions and details around usage make this a complicated effect that likely wouldn’t ever be printed.
Missing Dex Stats [-1 point]
Though you mentioned it evolves from Spoink you don’t mention it’s a Stage 1 [-1 point]
Final Thoughts:
I think you’ve shown you can put in the work, Goomy! And when it comes to the little things your wording is great, it’s the more complex concepts you have room to improve on. Make sure the words you’re using appear on cards that’ve been printed in recent years, as well as be sure things in your card are reasonably balanced, and are clear and sensible!
Final Score: 32/50
@A Dragon of Destiny
Creativity: (14/20)
I like the Solid counters a lot, it’s a simple yet effective tradeoff when it comes to making an interesting new effect. The GX attack is crazy wild, but this card is already full of effects, and having no vanilla is always a good thing.
Wording: (0/15)
“Steel” -> “Metal” [-1 point]
“When this Pokémon is hit by an attack” -> “When this Pokémon is damaged by an opponent’s attack” [-1 point] (Shiinotic, LOT 148)
“on this Pokémon” -> “onto this Pokémon.” [-1 point] (Ditto ♢, LOT 154)
“it gains 1 to its retreat cost” -> “its Retreat Cost is [C] more” [-2 points] (Beldum, CES 92)
“but” -> “, and” [-1 point]
You need to specify whether this is before or after applying Weakness and Resistance [-2 points] (Wigglytuff, LOT 134 + a lot more)
“gains 30 hp” -> “gets +30HP” [-1 point] (Bodybuilding Dumbbells, BUS 113)
“Place” -> “Put” [-1 point]
“Chikorita counter” -> “Chikorita marker” this doesn’t add up, it’s not accumulative [-2 points] (Gardevoir-ex, DF 93)
“Both” should not be capitalized [-1 point] (Shrine of Punishment, CES 143)
“knocked out” -> “Knocked Out” [-1 point] (Spell Tag, LOT 190)
“on them” -> “on it” [-1 point] (Chansey, LOT 152)
“shuffle it and all cards attached to it into the owners deck” -> “shuffle that Pokémon and all cards attached to it into that player’s deck” [-1 point] (Unfezant, 80 ROS)
Believability: (13/15)
The card seems all over the place, like at points it seems like you’re trying too hard to pump the card full of over the top effects, that’s not a good thing. Tracking gained HP with the Solid counters also doesn’t work fully with the game’s mechanics.
Unnecessary Dex Entry (a GX won’t have those) [-1 point]
Final Thoughts:
Welcome to the Create-a-Card competitions! Nice to know this is your first one, and I can see that there are ideas there and I’d love to see what you have in store for the future. It’s clear after taking a look at this that your biggest area for improvement is proper wording, so I suggest you use your resources and figure out wording from there.
Final Score: 27/50
I like the Solid counters a lot, it’s a simple yet effective tradeoff when it comes to making an interesting new effect. The GX attack is crazy wild, but this card is already full of effects, and having no vanilla is always a good thing.
Wording: (0/15)
“Steel” -> “Metal” [-1 point]
“When this Pokémon is hit by an attack” -> “When this Pokémon is damaged by an opponent’s attack” [-1 point] (Shiinotic, LOT 148)
“on this Pokémon” -> “onto this Pokémon.” [-1 point] (Ditto ♢, LOT 154)
“it gains 1 to its retreat cost” -> “its Retreat Cost is [C] more” [-2 points] (Beldum, CES 92)
“but” -> “, and” [-1 point]
You need to specify whether this is before or after applying Weakness and Resistance [-2 points] (Wigglytuff, LOT 134 + a lot more)
“gains 30 hp” -> “gets +30HP” [-1 point] (Bodybuilding Dumbbells, BUS 113)
“Place” -> “Put” [-1 point]
“Chikorita counter” -> “Chikorita marker” this doesn’t add up, it’s not accumulative [-2 points] (Gardevoir-ex, DF 93)
“Both” should not be capitalized [-1 point] (Shrine of Punishment, CES 143)
“knocked out” -> “Knocked Out” [-1 point] (Spell Tag, LOT 190)
“on them” -> “on it” [-1 point] (Chansey, LOT 152)
“shuffle it and all cards attached to it into the owners deck” -> “shuffle that Pokémon and all cards attached to it into that player’s deck” [-1 point] (Unfezant, 80 ROS)
Believability: (13/15)
The card seems all over the place, like at points it seems like you’re trying too hard to pump the card full of over the top effects, that’s not a good thing. Tracking gained HP with the Solid counters also doesn’t work fully with the game’s mechanics.
Unnecessary Dex Entry (a GX won’t have those) [-1 point]
Final Thoughts:
Welcome to the Create-a-Card competitions! Nice to know this is your first one, and I can see that there are ideas there and I’d love to see what you have in store for the future. It’s clear after taking a look at this that your biggest area for improvement is proper wording, so I suggest you use your resources and figure out wording from there.
Final Score: 27/50
@pikachuuuu101
Creativity: (15/20)
I love love love the synergy here. Data Dissolve is a clear attempt at exploiting the work that the attacks are doing racking out damage with these Malfunction counters, and I love it. Generally nothing here is really unheard of, but when it mixes together here in a creative sense it for sure works, and for that great job!
Wording: (6.5/15)
“active” needs to be capitalized [-1 point]
“Pokemon” needs the accented “é” to be correct (x3) [-2 points]
“has at least 10 damage counters on it” -> “already has 10 or more damage counters on it” [-1 point] (Larvitar, LOT 115)
“lost zone” -> “Lost Zone” needs both words capitalized [-1 point]
“opponents” needs the apostrophe (x2) [-1.5 points]
“benched” needs to be capitalized [-1 point]
“Counter” in Viral Plague should not be capitalized. [-1 point]
Believability: (12/15)
Viral Plague is powerful for a DCE, that damage adds up fast, especially if your opponent has a pretty filled bench, but considering that this is a Stage 2, but it’s fine. Data Dissolve is also incredibly good, but what makes that much more bothersome is there’s no emphasis this needs to be your Active Pokémon to actually activate it, meaning something that’s a much more heavy hitter can actually get the 10 damage counters itself.
Missing Dex Stats [-1 point]
Final Thoughts:
This was definitely an interesting card, Pikachu. I think you really explored ways to make the card fit the theme without making it far too complex or overbearing and you definitely succeeded in doing that. But your wording mistakes, while everywhere, were almost entirely easy fixes, showing more signs of carelessness than lack of understanding. Take more time to make sure everything’s capitalized or not as it should be, you’re almost there.
Final Score: 33.5/50
I love love love the synergy here. Data Dissolve is a clear attempt at exploiting the work that the attacks are doing racking out damage with these Malfunction counters, and I love it. Generally nothing here is really unheard of, but when it mixes together here in a creative sense it for sure works, and for that great job!
Wording: (6.5/15)
“active” needs to be capitalized [-1 point]
“Pokemon” needs the accented “é” to be correct (x3) [-2 points]
“has at least 10 damage counters on it” -> “already has 10 or more damage counters on it” [-1 point] (Larvitar, LOT 115)
“lost zone” -> “Lost Zone” needs both words capitalized [-1 point]
“opponents” needs the apostrophe (x2) [-1.5 points]
“benched” needs to be capitalized [-1 point]
“Counter” in Viral Plague should not be capitalized. [-1 point]
Believability: (12/15)
Viral Plague is powerful for a DCE, that damage adds up fast, especially if your opponent has a pretty filled bench, but considering that this is a Stage 2, but it’s fine. Data Dissolve is also incredibly good, but what makes that much more bothersome is there’s no emphasis this needs to be your Active Pokémon to actually activate it, meaning something that’s a much more heavy hitter can actually get the 10 damage counters itself.
Missing Dex Stats [-1 point]
Final Thoughts:
This was definitely an interesting card, Pikachu. I think you really explored ways to make the card fit the theme without making it far too complex or overbearing and you definitely succeeded in doing that. But your wording mistakes, while everywhere, were almost entirely easy fixes, showing more signs of carelessness than lack of understanding. Take more time to make sure everything’s capitalized or not as it should be, you’re almost there.
Final Score: 33.5/50
@FlashRayquaza
Creativity: (18/20)
This is such a beautiful concept, oh my word. Infatuation is never something I believed could be possible, but you took the opportunity with these counters and absolutely ran with it, and everything you did with it is amazing! Making 2 Active Pokémon both with the counters unable to damage each other is simply an amazing twist. The flexibility of these counters is there and they can be used to help yourself, hurt your opponent, I’m all over this one!
Wording: (12/15)
“Love Counter” -> “Love marker” misuse of counter/marker and incorrect capitalization [-3 points] (Tyranitar-ex, DF 99)
Believability: (14/15)
This was the era of the actual markers in the first place, and you made full use of the design space and absolutely ran with it, the card being based on these Love markers top to bottom. Considering cards like Gardevoir , and Tyranitar ’s markers were important to how the card itself functioned I could definitely see this being printed. Though the attack is a bit over power level, it doesn’t completely render this game breaking.
Final Thoughts:
I really thought judging a card with rulings so old would prove to be a challenge, something I’d find challenging, but you made it incredibly easy wording-wise. And conceptually this card is just beautiful.
Editing Penalty [-2 points]
Final Score: 42/50
This is such a beautiful concept, oh my word. Infatuation is never something I believed could be possible, but you took the opportunity with these counters and absolutely ran with it, and everything you did with it is amazing! Making 2 Active Pokémon both with the counters unable to damage each other is simply an amazing twist. The flexibility of these counters is there and they can be used to help yourself, hurt your opponent, I’m all over this one!
Wording: (12/15)
“Love Counter” -> “Love marker” misuse of counter/marker and incorrect capitalization [-3 points] (Tyranitar-ex, DF 99)
Believability: (14/15)
This was the era of the actual markers in the first place, and you made full use of the design space and absolutely ran with it, the card being based on these Love markers top to bottom. Considering cards like Gardevoir , and Tyranitar ’s markers were important to how the card itself functioned I could definitely see this being printed. Though the attack is a bit over power level, it doesn’t completely render this game breaking.
Final Thoughts:
I really thought judging a card with rulings so old would prove to be a challenge, something I’d find challenging, but you made it incredibly easy wording-wise. And conceptually this card is just beautiful.
Editing Penalty [-2 points]
Final Score: 42/50
@GamePhoenix
Creativity: (16/20)
This is an incredibly out there concept, not gonna lie, but it fits Ho-Oh for sure. Once again, another card that revolves fully around its exclusive markers and you get brownie points for really developing the card to the theme. Both of these are re-invented by these new markers and I think the work you put in to try and make this one truly unique shows in the final product. Color me impressed.
Wording: (3/15)
“If a Prism Star is discarded, put it in the Lost Zone” -> “If a Prism Star card would go to the discard pile, put it in the Lost Zone instead” [-2 points] (Ditto ♢, LOT 154 + all Prism Star cards)
“you” -> “your” [-1 point] (Suicune GX, LOT 60)
Periods go outside the parenthesis when they aren’t their own sentences (x2) [-1.5 points] (
“energy” -> “Energy card” this is because it’s not attached to anything [-1 point] (Zeraroa GX, LOT 86)
“place” -> “put” [-1 point] (Spell Tag, LOT 190 + way more)
“opponents” needs the apostrophe (x2) [-1.5 points]
“Pokemon” needs the accented “é” (x5) [-3 points]
“with damage” -> “by damage” [-1 point] (Beautifly, LOT 26)
Believability: (15/15)
This is definitely a trippy card, but given the nature of the theme I don’t think this is really broken. You get the extra Prize card if you Knock Out using this Pokémon, but they still keep it on the Bench. That’s such an interesting concept, but given that this was the right Pokémon to execute a marker twist like this with, I think if we still had markers like the old ones around this could definitely be created.
Final Thoughts:
This is an incredibly creative card, and you’ve definitely got ideas, this card shows that well. Wording needs improvement, however, and it’s largely recurring simple mistakes that are easy fixes that are bringing you down. If you can get those easy trends like accenting your “é”s down I think for the following quarter you’ll see a big improvement.
Final Score: 34/50
This is an incredibly out there concept, not gonna lie, but it fits Ho-Oh for sure. Once again, another card that revolves fully around its exclusive markers and you get brownie points for really developing the card to the theme. Both of these are re-invented by these new markers and I think the work you put in to try and make this one truly unique shows in the final product. Color me impressed.
Wording: (3/15)
“If a Prism Star is discarded, put it in the Lost Zone” -> “If a Prism Star card would go to the discard pile, put it in the Lost Zone instead” [-2 points] (Ditto ♢, LOT 154 + all Prism Star cards)
“you” -> “your” [-1 point] (Suicune GX, LOT 60)
Periods go outside the parenthesis when they aren’t their own sentences (x2) [-1.5 points] (
“energy” -> “Energy card” this is because it’s not attached to anything [-1 point] (Zeraroa GX, LOT 86)
“place” -> “put” [-1 point] (Spell Tag, LOT 190 + way more)
“opponents” needs the apostrophe (x2) [-1.5 points]
“Pokemon” needs the accented “é” (x5) [-3 points]
“with damage” -> “by damage” [-1 point] (Beautifly, LOT 26)
Believability: (15/15)
This is definitely a trippy card, but given the nature of the theme I don’t think this is really broken. You get the extra Prize card if you Knock Out using this Pokémon, but they still keep it on the Bench. That’s such an interesting concept, but given that this was the right Pokémon to execute a marker twist like this with, I think if we still had markers like the old ones around this could definitely be created.
Final Thoughts:
This is an incredibly creative card, and you’ve definitely got ideas, this card shows that well. Wording needs improvement, however, and it’s largely recurring simple mistakes that are easy fixes that are bringing you down. If you can get those easy trends like accenting your “é”s down I think for the following quarter you’ll see a big improvement.
Final Score: 34/50
@Vom
Deoxys GX
Creativity: (17/20)
This is simply a beautiful card, wowsorry I had to! Wow! Signal allows the user tons of flexibility as to how far they want to go when it comes to utilizing these markers, allowing you to sacrifice what you can afford to that won’t eventually lead you to finding yourself in an undesirable situation because of it. And the Alien Virus counters with a good amount are horrifyingly painful to deal with, though allowing damage control through evolution is interesting. Close Encounter and World Ender both completely draw from these markers, meaning you fully explored the theme and made the most of it! All of these mashups of effects come together to form something new and ultimately quite well put together!
Wording: (9/15)
“one” -> “1” [-1 point]
“The attacks of Pokémon with Alien Virus counters cost [C] more for each Alien Virus counter on them.” -> “The attacks of a Pokémon cost [C] more for each Alien Virus counter of it” [-2 points]
“If” -> “Whenever” [-1 point] (Heat Factory ♢, LOT 178)
“Neither player can take more than 2 Prize cards during the turn you use this attack” -> Each player can't take more than 2 Prize cards from this attack. it’s already possible to take more through abilities, limiting Prizes to the whole turn doesn’t work [-2 points]
Believability: (14/15)
Close Encounter for just [C] is powerful, but keeping it from Knocking Basics that could potentially be caught by a 60 power attack is probably for the best, though considering this can be seen as having a higher attack cost due to what you’re sending to the Lost Zone it’s a bit justified. Requiring more than 60HP to use World Ender is… kind of unnecessary? But it’s not problematic enough to dock points for.
Final Thoughts:
This is no doubt a great card, and the involvement of the Alien Virus markers top to bottom shows you worked with the theme, and that’s great! There are bigger, often more conceptual issues with wording you should definitely take a look at to try to get that cleared up in the future.
Final Score: 40/50
This is simply a beautiful card, wow
Wording: (9/15)
“one” -> “1” [-1 point]
“The attacks of Pokémon with Alien Virus counters cost [C] more for each Alien Virus counter on them.” -> “The attacks of a Pokémon cost [C] more for each Alien Virus counter of it” [-2 points]
“If” -> “Whenever” [-1 point] (Heat Factory ♢, LOT 178)
“Neither player can take more than 2 Prize cards during the turn you use this attack” -> Each player can't take more than 2 Prize cards from this attack. it’s already possible to take more through abilities, limiting Prizes to the whole turn doesn’t work [-2 points]
Believability: (14/15)
Close Encounter for just [C] is powerful, but keeping it from Knocking Basics that could potentially be caught by a 60 power attack is probably for the best, though considering this can be seen as having a higher attack cost due to what you’re sending to the Lost Zone it’s a bit justified. Requiring more than 60HP to use World Ender is… kind of unnecessary? But it’s not problematic enough to dock points for.
Final Thoughts:
This is no doubt a great card, and the involvement of the Alien Virus markers top to bottom shows you worked with the theme, and that’s great! There are bigger, often more conceptual issues with wording you should definitely take a look at to try to get that cleared up in the future.
Final Score: 40/50
@Nyora
Hoopa GX
Creativity: (19/20)
Effect-wise this is such a gorgeous card, Nyora. Top to bottom I feel like I see nothing but originality and clear care went into the building. Malevolent Swipe is beautiful, though there’s a conceptual error there I’ll get to. Mystical Emanation and Six Ring Seige are both incredible, especially a nice touch with the six rings which fits Hoopa wonderfully. Impeccable design work!
Wording: (9/15)
“this Hoopa” -> “this Pokémon” [-1 point] (Lugia GX, LOT 159)
“put this card” -> “put that card” since this is referring to the Pokémon Tool card and not the Hoopa [-1 point]
“put a Ringed marker on that Pokémon” is correct wording-wise, but what Pokémon is this referring to? If it’s the Hoopa-GX, then “this Pokémon” would be applicable, there’s no mention of another Pokémon and because of that this whole phrase is incorrect [-2 points]
“has -10 maximum HP” -> “gets -10 HP” [-2 points] (Bodybuilding Dumbbells, BUS 113)
Believability: (15/15)
Six Ring Seige sounds super overpowered when you consider “only 6?” but at the same time you’ve gotta get 6 markers in play when they come 1 at a time and not in the quickest way. The counters by themselves don’t seem too powerful either. Mystical Emanation also looks powerful on the surface but at the same time considering the nature of how many Special Energy can even be in a game it’s also not gamebreaking.
Final Thoughts:
I’m in absolute awe, this is an absolutely gorgeous card top to bottom, and it’s clear tons of creative thought went into this one! There were points where your wording got a little funky (outside the conceptual issue) but those were small and simple fixes. Amazing work Nyora!
Final Score: 43/50
Effect-wise this is such a gorgeous card, Nyora. Top to bottom I feel like I see nothing but originality and clear care went into the building. Malevolent Swipe is beautiful, though there’s a conceptual error there I’ll get to. Mystical Emanation and Six Ring Seige are both incredible, especially a nice touch with the six rings which fits Hoopa wonderfully. Impeccable design work!
Wording: (9/15)
“this Hoopa” -> “this Pokémon” [-1 point] (Lugia GX, LOT 159)
“put this card” -> “put that card” since this is referring to the Pokémon Tool card and not the Hoopa [-1 point]
“put a Ringed marker on that Pokémon” is correct wording-wise, but what Pokémon is this referring to? If it’s the Hoopa-GX, then “this Pokémon” would be applicable, there’s no mention of another Pokémon and because of that this whole phrase is incorrect [-2 points]
“has -10 maximum HP” -> “gets -10 HP” [-2 points] (Bodybuilding Dumbbells, BUS 113)
Believability: (15/15)
Six Ring Seige sounds super overpowered when you consider “only 6?” but at the same time you’ve gotta get 6 markers in play when they come 1 at a time and not in the quickest way. The counters by themselves don’t seem too powerful either. Mystical Emanation also looks powerful on the surface but at the same time considering the nature of how many Special Energy can even be in a game it’s also not gamebreaking.
Final Thoughts:
I’m in absolute awe, this is an absolutely gorgeous card top to bottom, and it’s clear tons of creative thought went into this one! There were points where your wording got a little funky (outside the conceptual issue) but those were small and simple fixes. Amazing work Nyora!
Final Score: 43/50
@SmiteKnight
Creativity: (15/20)
I suppose this was an opportunity to throw weather in there, and you went with it. Though Total Sandstorm seems to be an attempt at finding a way to actually input weather, Blades of Sand is much more interesting. A sandstorm’s worse depending on the amount of sand, I suppose that would apply here.
Wording: (6/15)
“place” -> “put” (x4) [-2.5 points]
“Counter” should not be capitalized (x4) [-2.5 points] (Tyranitar-ex, DF 99)
“active” -> should be capitalized [-1 point] (Metagross ex, PK 95)
“pokemon” is missing accented “é” and isn’t capitalized [-2 points]
“knocked out” both words should be capitalized [-1 point]
“one” -> “1” [-1 point]
Believability: (12/15)
Blades of Sand obviously gets more powerful as it goes, and the extra chip-in damage from the Sandstorm markers makes damage rack up incredibly quickly. Eventually you’ll hit 80 damage per turn and that’s very high power level for the era. But compared to things like Tyranitar-ex and Gardevoir-ex from Dragon Frontiers I don’t think it’s too busted.
Unnecessary Dex Entry (an ex won’t have those) [-1 point]
Final Thoughts:
This is a creative card for sure, I like how you built everything around the Sandstorm markers! But unfortunately what really hurt you was your wording, and almost all of it is simple mistakes that can be fixed in a simple proofreading! My advice to you is you take closer looks at your wording and the full card before posting anything.
Edit Penalty [-2 points]
Final Score: 31/50
I suppose this was an opportunity to throw weather in there, and you went with it. Though Total Sandstorm seems to be an attempt at finding a way to actually input weather, Blades of Sand is much more interesting. A sandstorm’s worse depending on the amount of sand, I suppose that would apply here.
Wording: (6/15)
“place” -> “put” (x4) [-2.5 points]
“Counter” should not be capitalized (x4) [-2.5 points] (Tyranitar-ex, DF 99)
“active” -> should be capitalized [-1 point] (Metagross ex, PK 95)
“pokemon” is missing accented “é” and isn’t capitalized [-2 points]
“knocked out” both words should be capitalized [-1 point]
“one” -> “1” [-1 point]
Believability: (12/15)
Blades of Sand obviously gets more powerful as it goes, and the extra chip-in damage from the Sandstorm markers makes damage rack up incredibly quickly. Eventually you’ll hit 80 damage per turn and that’s very high power level for the era. But compared to things like Tyranitar-ex and Gardevoir-ex from Dragon Frontiers I don’t think it’s too busted.
Unnecessary Dex Entry (an ex won’t have those) [-1 point]
Final Thoughts:
This is a creative card for sure, I like how you built everything around the Sandstorm markers! But unfortunately what really hurt you was your wording, and almost all of it is simple mistakes that can be fixed in a simple proofreading! My advice to you is you take closer looks at your wording and the full card before posting anything.
Edit Penalty [-2 points]
Final Score: 31/50
3rd Place: FlashRayquaza’s touching Togetic ex, with 42/50 points.
2nd Place: Nyora’s hazardous Hoopa GX, with 43/50 points.
1st Place: VioletValkyrie’s dusky Darkrai GX, with 46/50 points.
Image-Based Results
Judge: @Jabberwock
Another round done, another set of results … only this was the first round of the CaC to take place under the new quarterly system! I’d be interested to hear what y’all thought of it, in terms of how it was to have two months rather than one to use in designing and executing your card. In image-based, this might be an extra boon, giving you to time to do things you wouldn’t ordinarily have tried in a one-month contest. Feel free to leave your thoughts below; would love to hear feedback and any suggestions y’all might have moving forward.
It was a really close round between the top 3 cards, with a mere 1.5 points’ difference between first and third place. I saw some outstanding creativity from all of you –– keep it up!
There’s one other thing I want to address, which both Lorde and I noticed a lot of: “counter” and “marker” aren’t interchangeable. “Counter” is for things like damage counters, which add up over time. An attack that does damage based on the number of counters on a Pokémon would need to specify counters and not markers. “Marker”, on the other hand, is for things that “mark” a Pokémon for something, or assign a specific effect to it. You can have multiple markers on a Pokémon, but it won’t make a difference for the effect. The distinction between the two is important!
Next month’s contest will be up either tomorrow, January 1, or the day after. Happy New Year, y’all!
Wow, that’s a really stunning use of that artwork. I can’t even tell what filters you did to it, but it works incredibly well. Perhaps a little bit dark, but overall it doesn’t look remotely out of place for the era.
The card is very well-designed, too. Solemn Vigil is a neat gimmicky effect reminiscent of cards like Crustle BCR, and it’s cool to see that the second attack complements it. The flavor of Vigil markers is interesting, though I question the choice of “Vigil” over something like “Sturdy”. Nonetheless, it’s fascinating design space and I’d love to see the effect used in a gameplay setting.
Iron Retaliation is actually probably a bit underpowered for what it is. It’ll take you a few turns of setup with Vigil markers to get anywhere substantial with the attack in terms of damage, and even then your entire board can be wiped by a Flying Flip from a Tapu Koko SM30 or something similar. You could easily go up to at least 60x without it being broken.
Lastly, I wanna note that there’s something weirdly grainy about the card. Some parts of it –– like the tops of the “S” and “L” in “Steelix” –– are distorted, and there are slight inconsistencies along the edge of the left-hand border. This might be the file type you saved it as? The aesthetics are perfect apart from that, but I am going to dock a half-point for the graininess.
Wording errors:
- “GX” and “EX” should be italicized. [-1 point]
- Second part of the first attack should read more like “If a Pokémon that has any Vigil markers on it would be …”; the way it is now has a singular/plural disconnect between the first clause and the second. [-2 points]
Fonts and Placement errors:
- Looks good.
Creativity/Originality: 13/15
(Really nice design space.)
Wording: 12/15
(A couple of errors.)
Fonts and Placement: 10/10
(On point.)
Believability/Playability: 4/5
(Slightly underpowered.)
Aesthetics: 4.5/5
(Beautifully rendered art.)
Total: 43.5/50
Ooh, I like this take on SM-era Megas! Being a Prism Star that evolves from a Stage 2, it lets you do some really cool stuff with power levels that you could never get away with on an ordinary card. Looks like you took that to heart, too.
The idea behind the Speed Boost mechanic reminds me of the common misconception around attacks like Torkoal SLG’s High-Pressure Heat –– namely, whether or not they stack to add 50 damage every turn. Of course, those attacks don’t, but you’ve used markers to make it so this one does. Nice thinking there.
Star-Searing Strike is neat in that it grows very powerful very quickly, but it isn’t broken right away. In fact, the first couple times you use it, it’s downright underpowered. That makes it a good wallbreaker to counter stall decks, but perhaps overly difficult to use otherwise. I also think the Burn for that attack is redundant, given that you’re one-shotting most things after just two uses of the attack.
I like the art you’ve chosen, but the card looks a touch busy with the holosheets and texturing. I think all it really needs is the sunlava holosheet, and the added texturing is a bit much. Plus, as asche and others are fond of saying, a card with that many holosheets would be unfeasibly thick in real life anyway.
Wording errors:
- “Of The” should be lowercase in the Ability name. [-1 point]
- “Counter” should be lowercase, as per all cards that have used counter or marker effects in the past. x2 [-1.5 points]
- “Discard 2 Energy from this Pokémon” should be at the beginning of that attack text, and the third clause (the one about Burning) should be separated into its own sentence or else adjoined with “and”. [-3 points]
Fonts and Placement errors:
- The card name is too big and looks to be slightly too high. [-1.5 points]
- The text quality is off. I don’t dock for this because it’s barely noticeable, but if you’re in Photoshop, select the text and change the setting from “Sharp” to “Smooth”.
Creativity/Originality: 11/15
(Interesting use of counters.)
Wording: 9.5/15
(A few errors of semantics.)
Fonts and Placement: 8.5/10
(Card name is off.)
Believability/Playability: 4/5
(Cautious point for weird attack; Burn feels redundant.)
Aesthetics: 4/5
(Nice art; would recommend fewer holosheets.)
Total: 37/50
Love your use of holosheets as always, Nyan. The rainbow version of sunlava seems particularly appropriate here for this art.
Disguise counters, and specifically their incorporation in the Ability, are a good way to do Mimikyu’s mechanic in the TCG. Costume Party is a sort of icing on the cake; a really simple GX attack that nonetheless ties into the mechanic in a fun way.
Spectral Slash does damage and is Special Energy hate, which is fine. 70-for-two and Special Energy hate is probably a fine attack to be using considering you’ll be behind a Disguise most of the time. Overall a solid card. It’s neither broken nor underpowered. Nicely done. ^.^
Wording errors:
- “counter” -> “marker”, because the Disguises “mark” the Pokémon for an effect rather than “counting” anything. [-2 points, blanket]
- Ability needs to be reworded because rn it assumes that a Pokémon can only ever have one Disguise counter, max, even though the GX attack allows there to be more. [-2 points]
- “Pokemon” in the GX attack needs a é. [-0.5 point]
Fonts and Placement errors:
- The Ability and attack text should be the same size. The GX attack is allowed to be a different size if necessary for space reasons, but the other two need to stay the same. [-2 points]
Creativity/Originality: 12/15
(Nice incorporation of Disguise mechanic.)
Wording: 10.5/15
(A couple things, and the é.)
Fonts and Placement: 8/10
(Attack text size.)
Believability/Playability: 5/5
(Yeah, I could see this.)
Aesthetics: 5/5
(Beautiful art/holosheet dichotomy.)
Total: 40.5/50
I quite like that art! It’s always fascinating to me when PCL commissions an illustrator to do art like that for two separate cards in a single scene. It’s the sort of thing where you open a pack, see the Dustox, think “ohhey this looks familiar!” and run over to check it against the Beautifly in your binder. I especially love the sunrise/sunset dichotomy you’ve got going here.
The Allergy counter mechanic is a good adaptation of Toxic, or at least the flavor behind it if not the exact function. Allergic Scales concerns me somewhat because you could theoretically get five Allergy counters on your opponent’s Active Pokémon in a single turn (four Dustox w/ Ability plus the attack), but that would require too many resources (Switches and the like) to be sustainable, so it’s probably fine. With how easy it is to retreat out of Poison, 60 damage from it isn’t even that big a deal.
But it does rack up over many turns, and that’s the interesting part. It’s a tough mechanic to abuse, but ends up paying off in the long run. Honestly, that’s really good design, and the way you executed it, as far as I can tell, is flawless. Not a single thing I’d change about it.
Moth Dance is good; not much else to say there. It seems like PCL has been making an effort in the SUM block to make Special Conditions more viable, so I could definitely see this card happening.
There’s something wonky around the border at the very top and bottom of the card. Am gonna dock a cautious half-point from Aesthetics for that; I’m relatively certain asche’s blanks don’t have that, so I’d suggest taking a look there.
Wording errors:
- “and Allergy counter” -> “an Allergy counter”. [-0.5 point]
- “the Defending Pokémon” as it appears in the Ability should be “your opponent’s Active Pokémon”. It’s not defending from an attack, so it’s not the Defending Pokémon –– not since the beginning of the XY block, anyway. The usage of “Defending Pokémon” in the attack is fine. [-2 points]
- “one” -> “1” x3; one counted elsewhere [-1 point]
- “between turns” should go after “Poisoned Pokémon” at the end of the Ability. [-2 points]
- I tried to find a reference for “on them” versus “on it” because it seems weird to me to say “them”, even though it would be grammatically correct, on account of the fact that your opponent can’t have more than one Poisoned Pokémon bar some really weird other mechanics. I couldn’t find anything, though, so I’ll let it be. [-0 points]
Fonts and Placement errors:
- The [C] icon is a pixel lower than the [G] icon in the attack cost. [-1 point]
- Text quality should be set to “Smooth”, not “Sharp” or whatever you’ve got it on now. It’s a lame thing to dock for, so I don’t, but keep it in mind for the future. ^.^
Creativity/Originality: 15/15
(I don’t give this score out lightly, but you definitely deserve it. Nice work there.)
Wording: 9.5/15
(A few basic things; don’t forget to proofread and check for references!)
Fonts and Placement: 9/10
(Almost perfect.)
Believability/Playability: 5/5
(Definitely.)
Aesthetics: 4.5/5
(Cautious point for something screwy with the border.)
Total: 43/50
Your art style continues to be exceptional, Nick –– the attention to detail is really spectacular. My concern with the aesthetics of this card is something I’ve pointed out to you before, which is that the fonts and placements seem entirely eyeballed. There’s also something wonky going on with the Energy symbols, which there definitely doesn’t need to be, as asche has all the relevant symbols for the SUM era ripped and on sheets over on his dA account. Would suggest checking that out.
With that being said, taking inspiration from the games is always a fun way to approach a card. In contrast to the games, the TCG doesn’t keep track of effects that occur for more than one turn unless you bring in counters/markers, so it’s a neat way to keep track of stat changes. Unfortunately, there’s not much that the Intimidate counters do beyond existing as a source of mild annoyance to your opponent. It’d be cool to see some sort of synergy with the attack, as Earthquake is also fairly basic as far as creativity goes.
Wording errors:
- There’s some ambiguity over whether the Intimidate counters are supposed to stack. I’m inclined to think they should based on how the mechanic works in the games, as well as the first part of the Ability allowing you to place multiple counters on one Pokémon, but the current wording means that you would only deduct a maximum of 10 damage no matter how many counters there are. If they’re supposed to stack, they should be “counters”; if not, “markers”. [-3 points] for ambiguity.
- “it’s attacks” shouldn’t have the apostrophe. [-0.5 point]
- “Defending Pokémon” -> “Active Pokémon”. [-2 points]
Fonts and Placement errors:
- Blanket [-8 points] for eyeballed fonts/placements. Don’t forget to check them against a scan of an actual card!
Creativity/Originality: 10/15
(Some interesting adaptation of mechanics; would’ve liked to see more use of the counters.)
Wording: 9.5/15
(A few errors.)
Fonts and Placement: 2/10
(Eyeballed.)
Believability/Playability: 5/5
(Yeah, it seems believable enough.)
Aesthetics: 3/5
(Nice art, but symbols are wonky.)
Total: 29.5/50
You say it’s not the most visually exciting card, but a well-executed card with neat art and a pretty holosheet still does pretty well in aesthetics. There could probably be something extra just to set it apart, like a holo border or watermark symbol behind the text, but it doesn’t look half bad like this.
I like the idea behind the markers. It ties into the cursed flavor of Spiritomb very well, and I could see it shaking up games in a really interesting way. Much like with Gengar SF, you have to be careful how you deal with Spiritomb –– which attacker to use, how to maneuver it into position knowing you won’t get to use it again, etc. It’s exactly the sort of card I’ve come to expect from you; fascinating to think about the impact it would make on a metagame if it were actually introduced, and yet totally believable.
Wording errors:
- “haunt” should be capitalized in the Poké-Body. [-1 point]
- The last bit of the Body needs rewording; HGSS-era cards didn’t refer to your opponent having multiple Active Pokémon, and simply removing “each of” doesn’t work. Probably needs to be something like “As long as Spiritomb is in your discard pile, if your opponent’s Active Pokémon has a Haunt marker on it, that Pokémon can’t attack.” [-3 points]
- Poké-Bodies come before Poké-Powers, when a card has both. [-2 points]
Fonts and Placement errors:
- I thought it was weird to have so much space between the stats bar and the top of the Poké-Power text, versus so little below the bottom of the Poké-Body text, but looking at HGSS cards with similar text formatting it actually seems fine.
Creativity/Originality: 14/15
(Really interesting to think about.)
Wording: 9/15
(Poké-Body errors.)
Fonts and Placement: 10/10
(On point.)
Believability/Playability: 5/5
(Solid.)
Aesthetics: 4/5
(Nice holosheet.)
Total: 42/50
3rd Place: Blui’s Spiritomb, with 42/50 points.
2nd Place: Gabs Kazumi’s Dustox, with 43/50 points.
1st Place: Kavross’s Steelix, with 43.5/50 points.
Judge: @Jabberwock
Another round done, another set of results … only this was the first round of the CaC to take place under the new quarterly system! I’d be interested to hear what y’all thought of it, in terms of how it was to have two months rather than one to use in designing and executing your card. In image-based, this might be an extra boon, giving you to time to do things you wouldn’t ordinarily have tried in a one-month contest. Feel free to leave your thoughts below; would love to hear feedback and any suggestions y’all might have moving forward.
It was a really close round between the top 3 cards, with a mere 1.5 points’ difference between first and third place. I saw some outstanding creativity from all of you –– keep it up!
There’s one other thing I want to address, which both Lorde and I noticed a lot of: “counter” and “marker” aren’t interchangeable. “Counter” is for things like damage counters, which add up over time. An attack that does damage based on the number of counters on a Pokémon would need to specify counters and not markers. “Marker”, on the other hand, is for things that “mark” a Pokémon for something, or assign a specific effect to it. You can have multiple markers on a Pokémon, but it won’t make a difference for the effect. The distinction between the two is important!
Next month’s contest will be up either tomorrow, January 1, or the day after. Happy New Year, y’all!
Wow, that’s a really stunning use of that artwork. I can’t even tell what filters you did to it, but it works incredibly well. Perhaps a little bit dark, but overall it doesn’t look remotely out of place for the era.
The card is very well-designed, too. Solemn Vigil is a neat gimmicky effect reminiscent of cards like Crustle BCR, and it’s cool to see that the second attack complements it. The flavor of Vigil markers is interesting, though I question the choice of “Vigil” over something like “Sturdy”. Nonetheless, it’s fascinating design space and I’d love to see the effect used in a gameplay setting.
Iron Retaliation is actually probably a bit underpowered for what it is. It’ll take you a few turns of setup with Vigil markers to get anywhere substantial with the attack in terms of damage, and even then your entire board can be wiped by a Flying Flip from a Tapu Koko SM30 or something similar. You could easily go up to at least 60x without it being broken.
Lastly, I wanna note that there’s something weirdly grainy about the card. Some parts of it –– like the tops of the “S” and “L” in “Steelix” –– are distorted, and there are slight inconsistencies along the edge of the left-hand border. This might be the file type you saved it as? The aesthetics are perfect apart from that, but I am going to dock a half-point for the graininess.
Wording errors:
- “GX” and “EX” should be italicized. [-1 point]
- Second part of the first attack should read more like “If a Pokémon that has any Vigil markers on it would be …”; the way it is now has a singular/plural disconnect between the first clause and the second. [-2 points]
Fonts and Placement errors:
- Looks good.
Creativity/Originality: 13/15
(Really nice design space.)
Wording: 12/15
(A couple of errors.)
Fonts and Placement: 10/10
(On point.)
Believability/Playability: 4/5
(Slightly underpowered.)
Aesthetics: 4.5/5
(Beautifully rendered art.)
Total: 43.5/50
Ooh, I like this take on SM-era Megas! Being a Prism Star that evolves from a Stage 2, it lets you do some really cool stuff with power levels that you could never get away with on an ordinary card. Looks like you took that to heart, too.
The idea behind the Speed Boost mechanic reminds me of the common misconception around attacks like Torkoal SLG’s High-Pressure Heat –– namely, whether or not they stack to add 50 damage every turn. Of course, those attacks don’t, but you’ve used markers to make it so this one does. Nice thinking there.
Star-Searing Strike is neat in that it grows very powerful very quickly, but it isn’t broken right away. In fact, the first couple times you use it, it’s downright underpowered. That makes it a good wallbreaker to counter stall decks, but perhaps overly difficult to use otherwise. I also think the Burn for that attack is redundant, given that you’re one-shotting most things after just two uses of the attack.
I like the art you’ve chosen, but the card looks a touch busy with the holosheets and texturing. I think all it really needs is the sunlava holosheet, and the added texturing is a bit much. Plus, as asche and others are fond of saying, a card with that many holosheets would be unfeasibly thick in real life anyway.
Wording errors:
- “Of The” should be lowercase in the Ability name. [-1 point]
- “Counter” should be lowercase, as per all cards that have used counter or marker effects in the past. x2 [-1.5 points]
- “Discard 2 Energy from this Pokémon” should be at the beginning of that attack text, and the third clause (the one about Burning) should be separated into its own sentence or else adjoined with “and”. [-3 points]
Fonts and Placement errors:
- The card name is too big and looks to be slightly too high. [-1.5 points]
- The text quality is off. I don’t dock for this because it’s barely noticeable, but if you’re in Photoshop, select the text and change the setting from “Sharp” to “Smooth”.
Creativity/Originality: 11/15
(Interesting use of counters.)
Wording: 9.5/15
(A few errors of semantics.)
Fonts and Placement: 8.5/10
(Card name is off.)
Believability/Playability: 4/5
(Cautious point for weird attack; Burn feels redundant.)
Aesthetics: 4/5
(Nice art; would recommend fewer holosheets.)
Total: 37/50
Love your use of holosheets as always, Nyan. The rainbow version of sunlava seems particularly appropriate here for this art.
Disguise counters, and specifically their incorporation in the Ability, are a good way to do Mimikyu’s mechanic in the TCG. Costume Party is a sort of icing on the cake; a really simple GX attack that nonetheless ties into the mechanic in a fun way.
Spectral Slash does damage and is Special Energy hate, which is fine. 70-for-two and Special Energy hate is probably a fine attack to be using considering you’ll be behind a Disguise most of the time. Overall a solid card. It’s neither broken nor underpowered. Nicely done. ^.^
Wording errors:
- “counter” -> “marker”, because the Disguises “mark” the Pokémon for an effect rather than “counting” anything. [-2 points, blanket]
- Ability needs to be reworded because rn it assumes that a Pokémon can only ever have one Disguise counter, max, even though the GX attack allows there to be more. [-2 points]
- “Pokemon” in the GX attack needs a é. [-0.5 point]
Fonts and Placement errors:
- The Ability and attack text should be the same size. The GX attack is allowed to be a different size if necessary for space reasons, but the other two need to stay the same. [-2 points]
Creativity/Originality: 12/15
(Nice incorporation of Disguise mechanic.)
Wording: 10.5/15
(A couple things, and the é.)
Fonts and Placement: 8/10
(Attack text size.)
Believability/Playability: 5/5
(Yeah, I could see this.)
Aesthetics: 5/5
(Beautiful art/holosheet dichotomy.)
Total: 40.5/50
I quite like that art! It’s always fascinating to me when PCL commissions an illustrator to do art like that for two separate cards in a single scene. It’s the sort of thing where you open a pack, see the Dustox, think “ohhey this looks familiar!” and run over to check it against the Beautifly in your binder. I especially love the sunrise/sunset dichotomy you’ve got going here.
The Allergy counter mechanic is a good adaptation of Toxic, or at least the flavor behind it if not the exact function. Allergic Scales concerns me somewhat because you could theoretically get five Allergy counters on your opponent’s Active Pokémon in a single turn (four Dustox w/ Ability plus the attack), but that would require too many resources (Switches and the like) to be sustainable, so it’s probably fine. With how easy it is to retreat out of Poison, 60 damage from it isn’t even that big a deal.
But it does rack up over many turns, and that’s the interesting part. It’s a tough mechanic to abuse, but ends up paying off in the long run. Honestly, that’s really good design, and the way you executed it, as far as I can tell, is flawless. Not a single thing I’d change about it.
Moth Dance is good; not much else to say there. It seems like PCL has been making an effort in the SUM block to make Special Conditions more viable, so I could definitely see this card happening.
There’s something wonky around the border at the very top and bottom of the card. Am gonna dock a cautious half-point from Aesthetics for that; I’m relatively certain asche’s blanks don’t have that, so I’d suggest taking a look there.
Wording errors:
- “and Allergy counter” -> “an Allergy counter”. [-0.5 point]
- “the Defending Pokémon” as it appears in the Ability should be “your opponent’s Active Pokémon”. It’s not defending from an attack, so it’s not the Defending Pokémon –– not since the beginning of the XY block, anyway. The usage of “Defending Pokémon” in the attack is fine. [-2 points]
- “one” -> “1” x3; one counted elsewhere [-1 point]
- “between turns” should go after “Poisoned Pokémon” at the end of the Ability. [-2 points]
- I tried to find a reference for “on them” versus “on it” because it seems weird to me to say “them”, even though it would be grammatically correct, on account of the fact that your opponent can’t have more than one Poisoned Pokémon bar some really weird other mechanics. I couldn’t find anything, though, so I’ll let it be. [-0 points]
Fonts and Placement errors:
- The [C] icon is a pixel lower than the [G] icon in the attack cost. [-1 point]
- Text quality should be set to “Smooth”, not “Sharp” or whatever you’ve got it on now. It’s a lame thing to dock for, so I don’t, but keep it in mind for the future. ^.^
Creativity/Originality: 15/15
(I don’t give this score out lightly, but you definitely deserve it. Nice work there.)
Wording: 9.5/15
(A few basic things; don’t forget to proofread and check for references!)
Fonts and Placement: 9/10
(Almost perfect.)
Believability/Playability: 5/5
(Definitely.)
Aesthetics: 4.5/5
(Cautious point for something screwy with the border.)
Total: 43/50
Your art style continues to be exceptional, Nick –– the attention to detail is really spectacular. My concern with the aesthetics of this card is something I’ve pointed out to you before, which is that the fonts and placements seem entirely eyeballed. There’s also something wonky going on with the Energy symbols, which there definitely doesn’t need to be, as asche has all the relevant symbols for the SUM era ripped and on sheets over on his dA account. Would suggest checking that out.
With that being said, taking inspiration from the games is always a fun way to approach a card. In contrast to the games, the TCG doesn’t keep track of effects that occur for more than one turn unless you bring in counters/markers, so it’s a neat way to keep track of stat changes. Unfortunately, there’s not much that the Intimidate counters do beyond existing as a source of mild annoyance to your opponent. It’d be cool to see some sort of synergy with the attack, as Earthquake is also fairly basic as far as creativity goes.
Wording errors:
- There’s some ambiguity over whether the Intimidate counters are supposed to stack. I’m inclined to think they should based on how the mechanic works in the games, as well as the first part of the Ability allowing you to place multiple counters on one Pokémon, but the current wording means that you would only deduct a maximum of 10 damage no matter how many counters there are. If they’re supposed to stack, they should be “counters”; if not, “markers”. [-3 points] for ambiguity.
- “it’s attacks” shouldn’t have the apostrophe. [-0.5 point]
- “Defending Pokémon” -> “Active Pokémon”. [-2 points]
Fonts and Placement errors:
- Blanket [-8 points] for eyeballed fonts/placements. Don’t forget to check them against a scan of an actual card!
Creativity/Originality: 10/15
(Some interesting adaptation of mechanics; would’ve liked to see more use of the counters.)
Wording: 9.5/15
(A few errors.)
Fonts and Placement: 2/10
(Eyeballed.)
Believability/Playability: 5/5
(Yeah, it seems believable enough.)
Aesthetics: 3/5
(Nice art, but symbols are wonky.)
Total: 29.5/50
You say it’s not the most visually exciting card, but a well-executed card with neat art and a pretty holosheet still does pretty well in aesthetics. There could probably be something extra just to set it apart, like a holo border or watermark symbol behind the text, but it doesn’t look half bad like this.
I like the idea behind the markers. It ties into the cursed flavor of Spiritomb very well, and I could see it shaking up games in a really interesting way. Much like with Gengar SF, you have to be careful how you deal with Spiritomb –– which attacker to use, how to maneuver it into position knowing you won’t get to use it again, etc. It’s exactly the sort of card I’ve come to expect from you; fascinating to think about the impact it would make on a metagame if it were actually introduced, and yet totally believable.
Wording errors:
- “haunt” should be capitalized in the Poké-Body. [-1 point]
- The last bit of the Body needs rewording; HGSS-era cards didn’t refer to your opponent having multiple Active Pokémon, and simply removing “each of” doesn’t work. Probably needs to be something like “As long as Spiritomb is in your discard pile, if your opponent’s Active Pokémon has a Haunt marker on it, that Pokémon can’t attack.” [-3 points]
- Poké-Bodies come before Poké-Powers, when a card has both. [-2 points]
Fonts and Placement errors:
- I thought it was weird to have so much space between the stats bar and the top of the Poké-Power text, versus so little below the bottom of the Poké-Body text, but looking at HGSS cards with similar text formatting it actually seems fine.
Creativity/Originality: 14/15
(Really interesting to think about.)
Wording: 9/15
(Poké-Body errors.)
Fonts and Placement: 10/10
(On point.)
Believability/Playability: 5/5
(Solid.)
Aesthetics: 4/5
(Nice holosheet.)
Total: 42/50
3rd Place: Blui’s Spiritomb, with 42/50 points.
2nd Place: Gabs Kazumi’s Dustox, with 43/50 points.
1st Place: Kavross’s Steelix, with 43.5/50 points.
Always a pleasure and I'm glad to have joined the team alongside you, as well as being part of the first competition you've judged. I think this quarter's theme was very complex and that I'd have trouble judging some of these cards, so as another part of the team I'm glad to see you do such a great job during judging. I think people really underestimate how difficult judging some of these entries are because of some of the really neat and interesting ideas people submit with cards, so it's an underappreciated job that takes a lot to do well. And hey, you did it. Now we relax and let some of the other judges work, I suppose.
A little while back, when I was going through this thread again whilst judging, I saw this card again and was immediately inspired. I think it was the Ability name that caught my eye; the Wow! signal is one of my favorite bits of SETI history and I think the incorporation of it here is excellent. So I went ahead and made an image fake out of the card! Credit to @Vom, of course for the amazing original card, and @aschefield101, as per usual, for resources.
I've upgraded to using Krita now and am ready to fix all of the eyeballing for the upcoming contests.Your art style continues to be exceptional, Nick –– the attention to detail is really spectacular. My concern with the aesthetics of this card is something I’ve pointed out to you before, which is that the fonts and placements seem entirely eyeballed. There’s also something wonky going on with the Energy symbols, which there definitely doesn’t need to be, as asche has all the relevant symbols for the SUM era ripped and on sheets over on his dA account. Would suggest checking that out.
With that being said, taking inspiration from the games is always a fun way to approach a card. In contrast to the games, the TCG doesn’t keep track of effects that occur for more than one turn unless you bring in counters/markers, so it’s a neat way to keep track of stat changes. Unfortunately, there’s not much that the Intimidate counters do beyond existing as a source of mild annoyance to your opponent. It’d be cool to see some sort of synergy with the attack, as Earthquake is also fairly basic as far as creativity goes.
Meaning that I may have caught up to the rest of the competitors and might have a chance at a good run moving forward!
While wonderful for image based fakers, for text fakers, the quarterly thing is kind of meh. A whole month for a text faker is a TON of time. I think it should be cut to 1 month for entries and 1 month for submissions. I know some image fakers might really appreciate the time, but 2 months is really too much. Also oof, that hoopa sucked. SOO many errors lol
This is a good point. I'd be interested to hear from our image fakers whether the extra time for submitting actually helped, or whether you just procrastinated for the first month. I noticed a definite uptick in quality among your submissions, but I suppose that could've been coincidence.
I'd be open to changing it to a bimonthly system, and agree that it'd be a lot better for the text-based faker base. I do want to hear further input from more members of the community (text and image!), though, so in that regard I'll hold off posting a new contest until January 4. It's also just very sudden to make a change to the contest's format the day before posting it, so I want to make sure everybody's informed and to get their thoughts on it.
To you, reading this thread:
Was two months too much time for submitting, or did you effectively make use of the extra time? Would you prefer cutting the submission time back down to one month for the next contest?
I didn't participate this time, but regardless whenever I'm making a text fake, it never takes me 4 hours let alone a week or a month to make a text fake. The problem is, 2 months I assume is great for image fakers. So, I propose this contest splitting into two different threads for each category of fakes with text fake contests happening more often than image based contests.
Well, I procrastinated so my answer to both is yes
We would rather not do this. Traditionally text-based and image-based have just been two parts of the same whole that is CaC, and we've even had text-based fakers and image-fakers collaborate on the same submission in the past. It seems likely that we can reach a happy medium for both categories that doesn't involve splitting the competition.
I think, because this was the most confusing and zany card I’ve ever created, I maybe took 20 minutes. If I had enough ideas, I could create 20 cards in maybe an hour, 3 minutes per card. CaC cards (checking references and proofreading and all that) usually take me 5, max 10 minutes. I tried to image fake once, but GIMP confused me and I have forever left that part alone. I think (just me) that if an image faker spent 15 minutes a day on card creation, and the month was 31 days, that would be a total of 7 hours and 45 minutes of work. I think (think, and please please please count my lack of experience) that an image faker could get a single card done in that time.This is a good point. I'd be interested to hear from our image fakers whether the extra time for submitting actually helped, or whether you just procrastinated for the first month. I noticed a definite uptick in quality among your submissions, but I suppose that could've been coincidence.
I'd be open to changing it to a bimonthly system, and agree that it'd be a lot better for the text-based faker base. I do want to hear further input from more members of the community (text and image!), though, so in that regard I'll hold off posting a new contest until January 4. It's also just very sudden to make a change to the contest's format the day before posting it, so I want to make sure everybody's informed and to get their thoughts on it.
To you, reading this thread:
Was two months too much time for submitting, or did you effectively make use of the extra time? Would you prefer cutting the submission time back down to one month for the next contest?
But hey, why am I speaking for a group I’m not even in?
But for text fakers, one month was just the best.