Contest March 2020 CaC: Generation 8 (All Results Up!)

Discussion in 'Creative Works' started by Jabberwock, Mar 1, 2020.

  1. chico Aspiring Trainer


    Thank you!! Being a judge is sure is tough work. :confused:

    The previous system was okay for the most part! That's why I haven't changed the criteria all that much, just the point distribution. It just needed more polish to make it more adequate for judging image-based cards. As it was, it felt like a carbon copy of the text-based rubric. For example, Aesthetics only being worth 10% makes literally no sense for an image-based contest. I didn't want the visual aspect to be too powerful, though. That's why I've made a 50-50 system to remain fair.

    Oh, boy. You were so moved as to make graphs! XD As a visual person, I love those! Yay! :D
    They seem to be inaccurate, though. Let me check real quick *zoom*
    Yeah, my system is definitely different from the way you depicted it.
    Keep in mind this is just the most approximate estimate:
    Creativity is in Art, Blank, SFX, Effects, Flavor.
    Wording is in Text, Effects, and possibly other categories.
    Fonts/Placements is in Blank, Text, and possibly other categories.
    Believability/Playability is in Art, Blank, SFX, Gameplay, Effects, Flavor.
    Aesthetics is in Art, Blank, SFX, Flavor.

    The categories are part of each other in a way. This is how I managed to balance things out.
    I reckon is hard to make any outside analysis without knowing the inner workings like I do.
    Basically, I took apart playability from believability/authenticity and sprinkled the latter over most other categories. I did the same with creativity/originality.

    As you can see, the system I use hasn't substantially changed creativity and authenticity point distribution.
    However, I did take most of the power of fonts/grammar/syntax and gave it to more important areas in my opinion: aesthetics (obviously, it's an image-based contest), and playability (what use is a fine card if I can't never play it and expect to win?)

    That is partially true. I should favor effort, shouldn't I? Otherwise, half-baked cards would be worth the same as carefully crafted cards. However, I don't think I favor EXs/GXs or anybody's exes all that much if that's your concern. :p I have a check for what is conventional for a particular kind of card. But I'll review and test this more just in case.

    SFX refers to special visual effects, actually. I would agree on you if it weren't the case that AlphaLad's and FourteenAlmonds's cards scored pretty good on mechanics and art, respectively. I have explained more about how I judge blanks in my previous post. I do have checks and balances for this kinda stuff. Don't you worry. Bottom line, nothing on its own is decisive because I look at the card as a whole. That's my main focus.

    Well, if you are going to make the case that art is subjective, then docking X points for anything is also arbitrary and subjective. I don't agree at all that art is subjective. There's objectively good art out there. I know this because I've been tasked to measure it in the past without art style bias. I've always been considered fair when it comes to judging art. There's more to it that than quality as well, that's why I check for creativity/originality and believability/authenticity in most categories, including art.

    This is just not correct. But that's because you made an analysis with inaccurate information. Let's see...
    • Wording has been distributed and mixed with other categories I wouldn't say it has little presence at all (judging by how it was judged in the past). For that reason, it's difficult to draw conclusion like you do, even if I'm the creator of the system. Though, I think poor wording and creativity are balanced with each other for the most part. The scale could be slightly tipped towards creativity but that might need more testing. However, I don't think that's a bad thing.
    • No. They lost points for balance reasons as far as I know. Accuracy is not all that matters.
    • The rubrics are supposed to be different. You can't judge image-based entries as text-based entries. That should be a given. If you're able to make image-based cards already there's no transition to go through. You just do it. Besides, the new rubric is more similar to the text-based one than the old-image based one. Believability/Playability: old (10% vs 30%), new (38% vs 30%). Creativity/Originality: old (30% vs 40%), new + aesthetics (48% vs 40%).
    • Also, if I understood correctly, are you proposing beginners should score the same as experts?

    I think I addressed all your concerns. Thanks for the feedback!
    There's still things to iron out and tweak but I'll need more testing for that.
    I don't want to get too specific on how I grade stuff because it's kinda complex (the previous system was, too). I'm writing a guide of my own, but it's not ready yet lol
    And it's not like the old rubric's explanation was that detailed anyways (unless you have the guide :cool:). Besides, that's stepping a boundary, as judges don't ask how participant make their cards. Hopefully my clarifications can shed more light, nonetheless. Cheers!
    Last edited: May 2, 2020

  2. FourteenAlmonds NTernetttt ERXploerer


    I'm not going to stick my nose in too far for this one since I'm not all too familiar with Image faking, but one thing you said struck me as odd:

    I'm very aware that this is a nitpick, but as a judge, you do know why they lost points. I'd be a bit careful with that wording if I was you, as it makes it seem like you aren't really sure of your own marking..
  3. bbninjas Ready or Not!

    Advanced Member Member

    Chico, being an outsider does not make that person's insights or analysis inaccurate. You might know the inner workings, but we can observe the outer-workings, and the outer-workings are what we are talking about here.

    You say that you "haven't changed the criteria much", but it in fact appears that you have. You say that your system "hasn't substantially changed creativity and authenticity point distribution", but again it seems like it has. My breakdown of the new system was based on the outworkings. It was based on the way things seem to be, and if many agree with the way those things seem to be, then that is the way things are. You might have intentions, but the outworkings I'm seeing just don't match up to them. And with dismissals such as "you are not correct" and "there are more important areas [than accurate wording / font placement]", I feel like these concerns are not being treated seriously.

    It also seems like we've got a new judging rubric just for the sake of it. Why is it bad to have similar image and text rubrics, when those portions are similar? The change seems to reflect the preferences of one or two people - not the preferences of many. I feel like this new rubric misses the point of having a competition for the community.
    Last edited: May 2, 2020
  4. chico Aspiring Trainer


    LOL Well, is being brain-controlled by aliens out of the question? *puts tinfoil hat on*

    But in earnest, human error is a thing. Still, I'm POSITIVE there were balance points to be had. How do you like that?
  5. chico Aspiring Trainer


    True. But in this case, the way I organized the feedback doesn't show as transparently how the points were restructured and distributed. It's like peeping through a key hole. You can't make any based analysis of what's inside the room, if that makes sense.

    What I mean by not having changed the criteria is that I tried to keep the things that grant/dock points there. In any case I added to the criteria. I did change the point distribution, as I said. And again, creativity and believability power remain mostly the same, even slightly closer to the text-based rubric. I only shifted power from text to art/gameplay. Not only because I think there are better areas to be focused on but because text should be the realm of the text-based contest. That's how the two contests are different yet kinda similar. Otherwise it's just a carbon copy, I think. As if the visual aspect was an afterthought, you know? I also asked around friends and family and they only cared about two things: the visuals and what the card could do. They didn't brought up text once. Therefore it shouldn't be as important, especially for image-based, as I said. 50% is way too much for something that doesn't require much skill.

    Nah, man. I hear you. But you were using inaccurate info to base off your arguments. Besides, you may be judging the system too soon. There's just not enough data to claim that certain cards are favored unfairly over another. I might test the new system against previous contests and see how does it fare, if I have the time. But just so you know Jabber agreed with the top and he looked over and corrected my feedback/points a couple of times.

    I created a new system after reading how the old one worked multiple times because it didn't account for some aspects that go into making a card as strongly as it should in my opinion. I was tasked to do many things: not just judge creativity or accuracy. Effort, skill, teamwork... Also making more people join the contests. My focus is always the community, of course. But the community is potentially larger than regular card-makers like yourself. I have to consider other kind of artists, too.

    Just out of curiosity, how would the top look like to you?
  6. CardPone Electric Boogaloo!


    Surprises are one thing. This is certainly not the time or place for surprises, but whatever. The issue is that we were told to expect one way and then is was drastically changed with no warning. Most of us would have approached our cards entirely differently if we had known how completely different the weighting would be for these categories. By your own pie chart, you've clearly deflated Wording by 80% and inflated Believability/Playability by almost 200%.

    Docking or not getting enough points - whatever. It's the same result in the end: participants are not getting the points they should be getting just because they're using blanks made by Asche or whoever. None of these blanks look "low quality", whoever is defining that here. Awarding points for making a new blank is fine, but having a whole category just to tell people they really need to make a custom blank to get points is not. Aesthetics and Creativity covered this fine in the previous system.

    Again, these things should be mentioned in the comments under that category instead of just having what looks to an outsider as just a random score with a barely-related phrased ("Aircraft-themed!") as the only caption. The point of the judging is to help people improve their cards and you haven't given any advice for how the cards can be improved for a lot of categories.

    I mean I gathered that. The point wasn't that I didn't understand it, the point was that it's inconsistent. The only reason I can think of for expanding the point total to 100 is to eliminate ties, but seeing as 5 of the 8 entries for this month's CaC share a score with another entry, that evidently hasn't worked or isn't the aim.

    Omnium very clearly takes elements from all eras of the card game.

    Well, the card isn't an EX for one, so...
    Sounding robotic is exactly what you did from my perspective, putting everything in a bulleted list instead of talking about it in paragraphs like most previous CaCs have. And as above, these things need to be noted instead of being glossed over with no explanation about how the scores were reached.

    A higher score with a higher cap is exactly the same as half that score with half that cap. If this were adjusted to match the old maximum, my score would be a 34.5, which is easily my lowest score by far. But that's its own thing. Being a stricter judge is fine. We've had stricter judges before and I'm not worried about that. But in addition to that, as an "outsider", it feels like there are a lot of arbitrary and, dare I say, biased point reductions in this contest, which is a very bad idea, even if these reductions are not at all arbitrary or biased behind the scenes. You need to be transparent for the strictness to work.

    As bb said, you have changed the criteria quite a bit. Splitting categories and quartering/quadrupling the weight of certain categories counts as pretty drastic changes. Not to mention there are places where entirely new categories are popping up. Blanks have never been a problem before, and neither have plenty of other things that were conjured up. The only thing in your pie chart that appears to not have had a massive change is Creativity/Originality. Wording is worth a fifth of its old value, which is probably where most of my points disappeared to, because that's easily the part of the card I focus the most on, and then Fonts and Placement has been less than halved, which is probably where the rest of my points went, since that's where I put the next most effort in. Believability/Playability has been split into two categories and now is worth a whopping 38% of the total score, where it used to be 10%, and Aesthetics is worth more than double. I agree some of these are valuable, but the weight given to them is increased massively. 20% of the old rubric is now 60% of the new rubric. Aesthetics, while important, is far from being as important as it's weighted here, and apart from which is much more subjective than all the other categories (see below for more on that). Fonts and Placement is a category that only exists on image fakes and contributed perhaps just as much to a card as Aesthetics (indeed the two are intrinsically related; a card with the right fonts and alignments is going to look aesthetically better). Authenticity is already covered by every single category (except arguably Creativity/Originality), so I really don't get why that's been factored in to a category at all. That's pretty much the point of the rubric as a whole.

    SFX belongs mixed in with the categories it came from precisely because of cards like FourteenAlmonds' Greedent. If the card weren't holographic at all, as many CaC entries aren't, then what's the SFX score there? 0? That's completely unfair. A very large portion of CaC entries over the years have been non-holo cards and they should not lose out on points just because their card isn't shiny or blinged out, having elements that pop out of the border, textures, crazy lighting, or animated graphics. Common cards are just as valid as Ultra Rare cards.

    I don't even know where to begin with this sentence. We have an objective guide for those categories. Nothing about what you just said is valid.

    Quality of art is not always possible to put a value on, and particularly for popular art like you'd see in museums, the value of the art is extremely sensitive to who created it. Some art is better than others, but after a certain point - a point which I think isn't that hard to reach - what makes a piece better than another piece is 100% subjective and cannot be quantified. That's why it was worth what it was worth in the old system.

    They aren't judged as text based entries.

    That's how contests work. Everyone is graded on the same scale. And this rubric does not look like it favors beginners at all in the first place.

    The previous system is not complex. There was a set way to determine scores and the participants knew what was expected to be graded in each category. With your system, I have no idea what some of them are even referring to.

    As a judge, you need to be transparent about why you gave the scores you gave, especially when you're proposing an entirely new system and expecting everyone to be okay with it. The entire CaC Community is sitting on the outside of "the room" and the community's opinion is what should matter, not the opinions of a single person.

    In other words, you changed the criteria. A lot.

    EDIT: I meant to note this before, but I guess I forgot. (There's quite a bit to say about this new system, if that's not obvious.) You said you asked your friends and family, who may or may not even play the card game, let alone make a hobby of making fake cards. It's like asking a farmer what's the most important thing about spacecraft design. They may have zero interest in the inner workings. This contest is meant for people who do make cards, and by the sound of it you didn't ask a single person in the community. Maybe Jabber, and what he says is certainly valid, but far from representative of the community as a whole.

    For the record, I think Wording, Balance, and Believability are far and away the most important parts of a card. Everything else is there to make it pretty. Functionality over looks, even if it's an image-based contest.

    See above. Transparency, yada yada. The community needs to know what you're doing and why you believe your system is better, despite how vague it is to us right now.

    It's arrogant to walk in and just start heavily changing conventions that have worked perfectly for 9 years. You're changing things based off your opinion, which so far every single comment since the results were posted has shown to disagree with, and writing off any concerns about how we think it's a step in the wrong direction. The rubric has gone virtually unchanged for almost 9 years and there's a reason for that. Attempts have been made to change the way it works and use new systems, etc. back in 2014, and they were short-lived. The system before this month was easy for both the judges and the participants to understand and clearly laid out what was expected in simple categories. It has had very few lasting changes over the years because it works. If it needs any lasting changes, that should be brought up with the community or at least a good number of the people are most active in it.

    It goes without saying at this point that I'm still not on board with the new system (in fact I think I like it less now that you've attempted to explain things) and I expect I won't be entering in any more CaC contests that use it as a scoring system. At least not in the image-based category.
    Last edited: May 3, 2020
  7. FourteenAlmonds NTernetttt ERXploerer


    Text-Based Results

    Judge's note:

    Hey guys! It’s been great to see that numbers came back up for this month’s CaC, with some really high-quality entries -- there was a lot of exploration into fresh design spaces, and although wording was an issue for a lot of people this time around there wasn't a single entry that disappointed in every area. It was my first time judging here so I can’t really compare this to a previous event that I’ve judged, but it felt like a strong showing from pretty much everyone. Although the scores are a bit lower than usual, that most likely just comes down to me being a stricter judge than the brilliant @NinjaPenguin, who it seems I'm taking over from for at least the immediate future. Specific thanks to everyone who included references in their posts – not having had to judge before, I’d never actually realised how much easier it makes the process! Of course, feel free to ask any questions about my judging or how you can improve in general, and if you want to know specific references for any of your wording fixes just let me know. :D


    Galarian Cursola
    Type: [P] – HP100
    Stage 1 – Evolves from Galarian Corsola

    Ability: Spectral Vengeance
    Once during your turn, you may discard as many of your Benched Pokémon as you like. Put 1 damage counter on 1 of your opponent’s Pokémon for each card discarded in this way. If you use this Ability, your turn ends.

    P][C] Spectral Punishment: 10
    Discard all basic [P] Energy from this Pokémon. Put 2 damage counters on each of your opponent’s Basic Pokémon for each energy discarded in this way. The Defending Pokémon can't retreat during your opponent's next turn.

    [P][P][P][P] Spectral Forgiveness:
    Heal all damage from all Pokémon (both yours and your opponent’s). If more than 30 damage counters were removed in this way from your opponent’s Pokémon, take a Prize card.

    Weakness: Dark (x2)
    Resistance:Fighting (-20)
    Retreat: [C][C][C]

    Its shell is overflowing with its heightened otherworldly energy. The ectoplasm serves as protection for this Pokémon’s core spirit, the remnants of the coral reef the Pokémon once inhabited.
    Creativity: 17/20
    Spectral Vengeance doing damage for each card discarded rather than a specific type of card is really cool and has never been seen before. The new way to take prizes with Spectral Forgiveness is also really interesting and leads to new ways to play the game. Spectral Punishment is pretty good as well, but as it's unfortunately just a combination of effects and there's nothing super exciting going on like there is with the other two effects.

    Wording: 6.5/15
    Spectral Vengeance:
    - Major wording change: “Put 1 damage counter on 1 of your opponent’s Pokémon for each card discarded in this way.” -> “For each card you discarded in this way, choose 1 of your opponent’s Pokémon and put 1 damage counter on it. (You can choose the same Pokémon more than once.)” -4pts

    Spectral Punishment:
    - “each energy discarded” -> “each card you discarded” -1pt
    - “The Defending Pokémon can't retreat during your opponent's next turn.” -> “During your opponent’s next turn, the Defending Pokémon can’t retreat.” -1pt (new wording from swsh)

    Spectral Forgiveness:
    - “(both yours and your opponent’s)” should be italicised -0.5pts
    - “If more than 30 damage counters were removed in this way from your opponent’s Pokémon” -> “If you healed more than 300 damage from your opponent’s Pokémon in this way.” -2pts

    Believability: 10/15
    The Ability on this card is very strong. It can consistently spread for 80+ damage, although the investment it requires somewhat balances it out. Looking at what it could work with, though, it may be an issue with Giratina LOT in particular due to its ability to spread damage when it comes back from the discard, or in expanded some other stuff like Darkrai-GX or Exeggcute which can recycle themselves.

    Spectral Punishment, meanwhile, is well balanced: decently competitive but not overpowered.

    Unfortunately, Spectral Forgiveness is underpowered, and there’s no way around that. There isn’t much point healing your opponent when you can just KO it using the Ability, especially if you can only take one prize card after healing 300 damage. Healing all damage from your Pokémon just isn’t all that valuable either when you only have 100 HP. If it cost [P][P] less then it'd be much more viable, albeit situational, but as it is the attack isn't really worth powering up to use.

    -1 point for missing data line

    Final Score: 33.5/50
    There are a lot of things you did well at for this card, but you just weren't quite consistent. Your creativity was great overall, in particular with the Spectral Vengeance and Spectral Forgiveness, but were let down by a point or so by Spectral Punishment. Contrastingly, Spectral Punishment was well balanced but the Ability and second attack were not. Working to make sure every aspect of each effect shines is difficult but will help you a lot in future.

    Of course, more attention and close referencing in the wording section will also help you to improve, and as a side bonus will generally benefit your balancing as well.

    Duraludon VMAX
    Type [M] – HP340
    VMAX Pokémon (Gigantamax) – Evolves from Duraludon V

    [M][M][C] Max Steelspike: 120
    During your opponent’s next turn, this Pokémon takes 40 less damage from attacks (after applying Weakness and Resistance).

    [M][M][M][C] Giganto Deplete: 160
    Choose 1 of your opponent’s Active Pokémon’s attacks. That Pokémon can’t use that attack during your opponent’s next turn.

    When your Pokémon VMAX is Knocked Out, your opponent takes 3 Prize cards.

    Resistance: Grass (-30)
    Retreat: [C][C][C][C]
    Creativity: 8/20
    Both of these attacks have been seen exactly before. The card is slightly more interesting than something with only vanilla attacks, but not by much. There's not even any interesting synergy between the two attacks, which would have been good to see.

    Wording: 15/15

    Believability: 13/15
    I could definitely see this coming out in a future set. It’s overall decently well balanced, if cemented in the lower end of power in SWSH, and is almost on the power level you’d expect for a VMAX. I’d have to disagree about the lack of weakness, though. There have been some Pokémon without weakness in the SM era, but none so far in SWSH. I’d be inclined to let it go since we didn't have any Duraludon cards to compare with at the time you made the card, but Dialga shares its type with Duraludon and its Metal cards are consistently weak to Fire.

    Final Score: 36/50
    I'm sorry, but I feel like I have to say it: this card is just boring. There's nothing new here at all. It's an improvement from last round of the CaC, but I'd love to see you think up something new that's never been seen before :D

    Coalossol HP 180 Fighting
    Stage 2 - Evolves from Carkol

    NO. 839 Coal Pokémon HT: 9’02” WT: 684.5 lbs.

    /Ability/ ~ Bloody Tar
    The Special Condition Burned is not recovered when your opponent’s Pokémon move to the Bench. If your opponent’s Pokémon recover from the Special Condition Burned, put 2 damage counters on that Pokémon.

    [F][F][F] Eruption Impact 130
    You may use this attack for [R][R][R][R]. If you do, the Defending Pokémon is now Burned and you may do 60 damage to 2 of your opponent’s Benched Pokémon instead of 130 damage to their Active Pokémon. (Don’t apply Weakness and Resistance for Benched Pokémon.)

    While it’s engaged in battle, its mountain of coal will burn bright red, sending off sparks that scorch the surrounding area.

    Weakness: Water x2
    Resistance: None
    Retreat: 4
    Creativity: 19/20
    This is brilliant! Bloody Tar introduces a totally new effect, and while Eruption Impact is "merely" a complex combination of existing effects, they interact in a revolutionary way. Eruption Impact is an idea I'd absolutely love for the official TCG to adapt.

    Wording: 12.5/15
    “Coalossol” -> “Coalossal” -0.5pts :/

    Bloody Tar:
    - “If your opponent’s Pokémon recover … that Pokémon.” -> “If 1 of your opponent’s Pokémon recovers … that Pokémon.” (This is just some minor grammar stuff: “your opponent’s Pokémon” is plural, but the rest of the sentence refers to a single Pokémon.) -1pt

    Eruption Impact:
    - “the Defending Pokémon” -> “your opponent’s Active Pokémon” -1pt

    Believability: 11/15
    Bloody Tar allowing benched Pokémon to be affected by special conditions is not something that I can really expect TPCi to be able to handle effectively. It goes against a rule that’s been a mainstay in the game since it came out, and if it were permitted it would lead to having situations with 10+ between-turns effects that need to be resolved. Similar to how effects that last over multiple turns are generally best avoided, and custom counters are difficult to deal with, this is another effect that isn’t all that believable. While it’s a cool idea, it’s something I’d expect TPCi would want to avoid.

    Following on from that, “Bloody” is not a word you’d see on a card in the way it is there. Stuff like Boiling Blood on Lycanroc CEC and Bloodthirsty Eyes on Lycanroc-GX GRI are both established phrases in the English language and don’t really reference bodily fluids in the same way this does. It’s kinda gross, and while there are Pokedex entries just as bad (and worse) out there, that adjective choice is going to dock you a mark.

    Eruption impact, meanwhile, is way cool but not too far outside of the box for it to be unbelievable.
    The HP is a bit high, but considering there were no Coalossal cards printed when you’d made this, and there have been Stage 2s with 180 HP, I won’t dock any points for that.

    Final Score: 42.5/50
    This is an excellent card, Nyora! Eruption Impact is one of my absolute favourite effects I've ever seen in the CaC and I just can't get over it. It seems so simple, and yet... it's really not, and you executed it beautifully. The card took a hit in wording and believability, but it came out brilliantly. You've told me in the past that you sometimes don't even reference your cards and just do wording for memory, and I'm not sure if that's wht happened here but I'm sure that a perfect score in that category is achievable for you. Believability took its main deductions from the fact that it could never be printed... so, maybe try not to open the door to a broken game next time? :p

    Either way, congratulations on a stellar card!

    Corviknight VMAX – [M] – HP330
    VMAX – Evolves from Corviknight V (Gigantamax)

    [M] Blade Birds
    Discard up to 8 [M] Energy from this Pokémon. For each Energy card discarded in this way, choose one of your opponent's Pokémon and put 3 damage counters on it.

    [M][M][C] G-Max Wind Rage 150
    Discard all Special Energy and Pokemon Tool cards from each of your opponent's Pokémon

    Weakness: Lightning (x2)
    Resistance: Fighting (-30)
    Retreat: [C][C][C]
    Creativity: 12/20
    Blade Birds has almost been seen exactly before, and is only slightly different from some existing cards with similar effects. Similarly, the effect of G-Max Wind Rage has in fact been seen exactly before. I'd love to see you try and think outside the box, although considering the amount of wild effects already existing in the TCG I do admit that's a big challenge.

    Wording: 11/15
    Blade Birds:
    - “For each Energy card” -> “For each card” -0.5pts
    - “one” -> “1” -0.5pts
    - Needs an extra clause at the end: “(You can choose the same Pokémon more than once.)” -1pt

    G-Max Wind Rage:
    - “Special Energy and Pokémon Tool cards” -> “Pokémon Tool cards and Special Energy” -1 pt
    - Missing accented e in Pokémon -0.5pts
    - Missing full stop at the end of the sentence -0.5pts

    Believability: 12/15
    This seems pretty standard for a Vmax, but a bit underpowered. In my opinion, this isn’t so much a fault with your card, but a problem with the way TPCi is handling power creep. Blade Birds-style effects generally do damage instead of placing damage counters, but there’s no reason why it wouldn’t work with damage counters as well.

    Missing VMAX Prize Card clause, -1pt.

    Final Score: 35/50
    There's not really much for me to say here beyond the generic hints and tips. Thinking outside the box would certainly help with your creativity and I feel that that's necessary in order to progress your cards. Attention to detail in the wording section is important as always, as you lost a few marks there from a number of really small mistakes. It's still a solid effort overall, but making an effort to excel in each category would improve your scores by a lot.

    Flapple - [G] Pokémon - 80 HP
    Stage 1 - Evolves from Applin

    Ability: Fruit Drop
    While you are searching your deck with the effect of a Supporter card, you may play this Pokémon from your hand onto your Bench. If you do, put 2 damage counters on 1 of your opponent's Pokémon.

    [C][C]: Big Harvest 50
    Shuffle this Pokémon and all cards attached to it into your deck. Then, if your opponent's Active Pokémon has 10 or more damage counters on it or your opponent's Active Pokémon was Knocked Out by damage from this attack, draw 3 cards.

    Weakness: Fire x2
    Resistance: None
    Retreat: [C]
    Creativity: 16/20
    Fruit Drop introduces a totally new effect, along with another more standard effect mixed in. Contrastingly, Big Harvest is just a combination of existing effects and that unfortunately detracts from the overall creativity of the card.

    Wording: 11/15
    Fruit Drop:
    - Major wording change to: “Once during your turn, if this Pokémon is in your hand while you are searching your deck with the effect of a Supporter card, you may play this Pokémon onto your Bench.” (slightly modified Eelektross UNM, the most recent reference.) -3pts

    Big Harvest:
    - Remove the second “your opponent’s Active Pokémon” -1pt

    Believability: 11/15
    Fruit Drop needing to occur while searching your deck with a supporter card is an effect which is just… odd. Having a card from your hand move to the bench only while searching your deck is a lot going on at once – it’s almost like you’d need four hands to actually be able pull it off! Cards that activate while searching your deck have been seen in CaCs before and have been fine, but I feel like this is a bit of an exception as it activates from an external zone to that which is currently being searched/held in the player’s hand. It just doesn’t really make sense from a game-design point of view.

    Balancing of the attack, meanwhile, is consistent with what you’d expect from a card like this.

    No dex entry or data line, so -2pts.

    Final Score: 38/50
    This is a considerable improvement from the previous contest, well done! Your wording is a lot better than it was before, which was the main issue last month, so if you continue to improve I see no reason as to why you wouldn't be able to get a really strong 40+ score next time around. One thing that I did notice that was pulling you down a bit both this time and last is the clash between the levels of creativity in the two effects of your cards: both times, you've had a stand-out ability but an attack that is a little lackluster. This is often a flaw with my own faking as well, but if you work at it I'm confident you'll be able to do really well. For Believability, just try to imagine someone in a game actually managing the logistics of using your card: if there's a cause for confusion that you don't think would be resolvable by the majority of Junior division players, that's a concern. Either way, keep up the good work :)

    Galarian Runerigus - [P] - HP 110
    Stage 1 - Evolves from Galarian Yamask

    Ability: Rune Reader
    Once during your turn, you may use this Ability. Choose 2:

    • Look at your opponent’s hand
    • Shuffle your deck
    • Return any Stadium card in play to its player’s hand
    • Look at all of your face-down Prize cards

    You cannot use the effect of more than 1 Rune Reader Ability each turn.

    [P] Out of the Brickwork 20+
    If either player played a Stadium card from their hand during their last turn, this attack does 90 more damage.

    [P] [P] [P] Tragic Witness 30x
    Discard up to 2 Supporter cards from your hand. Then, this attack does 30 damage times the number of Supporter cards in your discard pile.

    Weakness: [G] (x2)
    Resistance: [F] (-20)
    Retreat: [C] [C]
    Never touch its shadowlike body, or you’ll be shown the horrific memories behind the picture carved into it.
    Creativity: 13/20
    Rune Reader gives a combination of effects in a really nice way -- I love the way you've looked at the old Alph Lithograph cards for inspiration, and it's exciting to see cards that have largely been forgotten thrust into the spotlight once more. However, Out of the Brickwork and Tragic Witness are both more simple combinations of effects and that means that there's nothing entirely new here. It'd be great to see you think up something totally new, and I can see that you made the effort here -- it just wasn't enough to get you over the line this time.

    Wording: 8.5/15
    Rune Reader:
    - Each of the effects needs a full stop; (-0.5 x 4) = -2pts
    - “its player’s hand” -> “its owner’s hand” -1pt
    - Remove “all of” -1pt
    - “cannot” -> “can’t” -0.5 pt
    - Remove “the effect of” -1pt

    Tragic Witness:
    - “times the number of Supporter cards in your discard pile” -> “for each Supporter card in your discard pile” -1pt

    Believability: 11/15
    Rune Reader is perfectly fine, if a little below the power level of the rest of the card. Out of the Brickwork is a little strong though, as 110 for [P] under an easily accomplishable restriction is pushing it. Unfortunately, Tragic Witness is where it starts to get a bit more overboard. 30x is a lot of damage for an effect like that with no damage cap, even when it costs 3 [P] to use. Comparing it to Banette-GX, Persian-GX or Zoroark TEU, all of those do less damage per card in the discard pile and have a damage cap, so it’s fair to say that this is a bit much.

    Missing data line, -1 pt

    Final Score: 32.5/50
    The two things which really let you down here were your wording and your creativity. The wording issues largely came from the fact that you copied the text right from the Alph Lithograph cards seemingly without checking for updated wordings, which is unfortunate. Wording changes regularly, which is a part of the reason why this month's was so hard to judge what with the Sword and Shield set freshly minted, but it's something that really needs to be considered.

    For believability, I'd suggest looking for cards with similar effects and balancing them around that: it's a surefire way of finding a good ballpark for balancing and is something that could absolutely boost your score next time.

    Dracovish V 180 HP type-water, evolution-basic
    Ability: Fossil Fuel.
    Once during your turn you may put your active Unidentified Fossil in the lost zone if you do you may use the Fishy Bite attack for 2 less [W] energy. If you do, ignore the effects of the Fishy Bite attack.

    Attack: Fishy Bite [W][W][W][W] 140+
    This attack does 50 more damage.

    weakness: [G] resistance: none

    Pokemon V rule When your pokemon V is knocked out, your opponent takes 2 Prize cards
    Creativity: 14.5/20
    Fossil Fuel integrates a brand new effect with a combination of existing effects to great effect (ha ha..). Fishy Bite is a very clever simple effect that has technically never been seen before. It's a neat card and I love the options it provides in gameplay, but Fishy Bite is still really simple even if the effect has never been seen before.

    Wording: 5/15
    - “180 HP” -> “HP 180” -0.5 pts (your formatting in general is pretty wonky, but this is something that matters more than most)
    - "Water" and "Basic" also need to be capitalised here, -1pt

    Fossil Fuel:
    - Put a comma after “Once during your turn” -0.5pts
    - Capitalise “Active” -0.5pts
    - Capitalise “Lost Zone” -0.5pts
    - Full stop and capital letter after “Lost Zone” -1pt
    - Major wording change for the latter half: “If you do, you may have this Pokémon’s Fishy Bite attack cost [W][W] less. If you do, ignore all effects of this Pokémon’s Fishy Bite attack (except damage).” -4pts

    Pokémon V Rule:
    - Remove the “Pokémon” in “Pokémon V rule” -0.5pt
    - “pokemon” -> “Pokémon” -0.5pt
    - Capitalise “Knocked Out” -0.5pt
    - Needs full stop at the end -0.5pt

    Believability: 8/15
    Balance-wise, it’s fine. Fishy Bite doing 190 is strong but not bonkers, considering Zacian V is a thing.

    However. And this is a big however. The way you want this card to interact simply defies some of the most consistent and significant rulings of the game: “effects of attacks” does not include base or added damage. It’s a clever idea, but the way you had it structured means that it’s not actually possible with the current wording. The best way to word this would have been simply to have Fishy Bite as a flat 190, and the ability reducing its damage rather than the attack adding it.

    Weakness also needs to have some specific damage modifier (eg x2, +20 etc). -1pt
    Missing Retreat Cost, -1pt

    Final Score: 27.5/50
    I get that this might seem a bit low, but I really do like this card. It delves into some unexplored design space and is really fun overall, but I think you need to consider existing cards some more when making your own. Attention to detail would save you heaps of points in wording, and having an understanding of established TCG rulings and "Meta-Rulings" in particular (you should check out resources such as The Compendium for help here if you need it) would make your believability much better. Overall, it seems like you just didn't put much effort into this card, which is a shame because it seems like you have a lot of potential for this sort of thing.

    Galarian Runerigus - Psychic - 100HP
    Stage 1 Pokémon- Evolves from Galarian Yamask

    NO. 867 – Grudge Pokémon – HT: 5’3” – WT: 146.8 lbs.

    [P][C] Void's Reach 30
    Look at your opponent's face-down Prize cards. You may put any number of basic Pokémon cards you find there on the opponent's Bench, and put the cards from the top of your opponent’s deck face down in their place. Then shuffle your opponent’s face-down Prize cards. If your opponent’s Bench is full, you may discard the top 2 cards from their deck instead.

    [P][C][C][C] Shadow Spear 120+
    For each Pokémon your opponent has in play, deal 10 damage to 1 of your opponent's Benched Pokémon. (Don't apply Weakness and Resistance for Benched Pokémon.) If your opponent has exactly 6 Pokémon in play, this attack does 60 more damage.

    Weakness: Darkness x2
    Resistance: Fighting -30
    Retreat: [C][C]

    Never touch its shadowlike body, or you'll be shown the horrific memories behind the picture carved into it.
    Creativity: 17/20
    Both attacks are combinations of existing effects, but Void’s Reach is new in that Pokémon have never been forced onto the bench from the Prizes before and that pushes you up a bit. The synergy between the attacks is also quite nice. I just wish that there was something totally groundbreaking in here, as that would really be something fantastic.

    Wording: 8.5/15
    Void’s Reach:
    - Capitalise “basic” -0.5pts
    - “on the” -> “onto your” -1pt
    - “and put the cards from the top of your opponent’s deck face down in their place.” -> “and add that number of cards from the top of your opponent’s deck to their Prize cards.” -2pts
    - Comma after “Then” -0.5pts
    - “from their deck” -> “of their deck” -0.5pt

    Shadow Spear:
    - I’m not sure entirely what you’re going for with the first sentence, but either way it’s not quite right. If you want to be able to choose different Pokémon, “For each Pokémon your opponent has in play, choose 1 of your opponent’s Benched Pokémon and do 10 damage to it. (You can choose the same Pokémon more than once.) This damage isn’t affected by Weakness or Resistance.” Is the way to go about it. If you only mean to damage one Pokémon, “This attack does 10 damage for each Pokémon your opponent has in play to 1 of your opponent’s Benched Pokémon. (Don’t apply Weakness and Resistance for Benched Pokémon.)” is what to do. -2pts either way.

    Believability: 13/15
    Shadow Spear to me certainly feels a bit “up there” in terms of its unmodified power cap. 180 damage + 60 spread is really very strong, even if it is . Considering Sword and Shield’s incessant power creep it’s only a little ahead of the curve, but it is still above what you’d expect for a stage 1 single-prize Pokémon that can use Triple Acceleration Energy for faster attacking. Other than that, it’s a pretty consistently well-balanced card.

    Final Score: 38.5/50
    It's an interesting card overall from you this time around, and it incorporates a lot of mechanics which I really like. However, your wording could absolutely benefit from more attention to the minor details. It's a significant step down in that category since last time, and I'm sad to say it just feels rushed. As well as that, the meaning of the second attack sort of got lost in the wording, so paying careful attention to wording in effects that have never been seen before is something worth doing.

    3rd Place: ThePigThatCriedRii’s Fantastic Flapple, with 38/50 points.
    2nd Place: ShaQuL’s Relentless Galarian Runerigus, with 38.5/50 points.
    1st Place: Nyora’s Colossal Coalossal, with 42.5/50 points.
    ShaQuL, CardPone, Nyan and 2 others like this.
  8. Nyan Staring into space again...

    Chat Room Staff Member

    This wasn't a surprise as much as it was a lie. The OP said one thing, we got another. If you're going to radically shift away from the 9-year old system, it would at least be courtesy to give us some notice in advance...

    Then why make it out of 5...? If you want to award extra points for using a visually interesting blank, put those points somewhere else.

    Can you explain to me how this stops ties? Last month 3 entries got 59s and 2 entries got 69s.

    So it's just a hodgepodge category of random info? Which also has subjective aspects to it? I see no point in this.

    Pone didn't make an EX. How was Pone supposed to know you'd be judgmental over his card as if it were one? You judged Pone's card as something it wasn't.

    You're right, it doesn't have little presence. It has no presence.

    I earned full marks in wording with an SM-era card that already had a pre-existing wording mistake (that went unnoticed by chico), that was judged through the lens of HGSS, which would've caused more wording issues to arise. Yet, full marks.

    If you're going to hand out full marks for wording this easily, then it truly holds no value.

    There isn't too much I can contribute aside from what has already been said. So, I'm going to copy and paste some of the things I said on Discord, with minor editing:

    Just to get this out of the way, there is NO REASON you should ever be docked points for the blank you use unless it's overly bad quality (apparently nobody was "docked" points because the base is 2, but that just raises confusion as to why it's out of 5 and it appears as if points are being docked for using standard blanks. It doesn't make any sense). Personally, I found this to be very disrespectful to asche, Pone, and anyone that makes for us to use specifically since they all put so much effort into making high quality 100% accurate easy-to-use blanks for EVERYONE. My Broken Eternity blanks wouldn't have ever been possible without asche's blanks and the freedom he allows for modification. I feel I was only given full marks because of how drastically I changed asche's blanks. Not everyone is capable or willing to do that every month. I worked so hard for that to look the way it did, and now I feel bad over it... Yes, I can make things look good, but there's an entire aesthetics category for that part of the judging. You don't need to disrespect some of the most important people in the faking community, the literal reason we're able to do almost anything we do, in the process.

    A follow-up, it being so aesthetics-oriented takes away a lot of values we've held over the years. If I wanted to make a card that would "win" this system, I'd make something similar to my Galar Birds entry. It just so happened this unexpected shift came at the time I decided to challenge myself with such a ridiculous task.

    But the main difference is that I'd sacrifice my wording for crazier and impossible-seeming effects. I'd make it all very very thematic and try to give it a really interesting flavor/story. But... what card in Pokémon TCG does this? It feels like we're veering away from making fake Pokémon cards to going full custom mode. I like making customs because I think they're cool, not because they're objectively better or something.

    My main point is that this shifts the system away from something that is fair for everyone to something that only a small handful of fakers can really gain anything from. And it all comes down to the root problem of opinions.

    Not everyone wants to do custom or flashy. But pretty much everyone wants to make interesting cards, and most people want to make loosely realistic cards. Those are the types of cards the system should benefit. And even if you don't want your cards to be very realistic, the old system didn't detriment you that much, if at all (except for wording).

    The way we word cards is based on the era they are from, obviously. I'll take my judging as an example for this since it's the one I've reviewed over the most. (This is sort-of ditto from earlier if you read my quote replies). chico said he judged my card through the lens of HGSS and other LEGENDs from that era. But he mostly just throws that out the window. I made a very obvious wording mistake on the Zapdos portion of the card that went unnoticed. But even weirder, even though the entire card was made with SM wording but somehow looked through the eyes of HGSS, my card got no wording marks...?

    My mistake holds value, even if it's negative. I want that value to reflect on the judging. Why didn't it? Was it even a mistake, then?

    Cohesion and order with this system seems quite off. I don't know why the judging is split into two portions when they're worth the exact same. And then those two are split into even more portions. All the visual effects are neat and all, but I don't really understand what they're telling me. Like, I got an 86 in Fine and a 72 in fun. Okay... where did I lose points? Because I could've broken the text more? Because the card has too much HP for an era it wasn't even balanced for? Because my effects were "random"? I'm not even sure what "Flavor" is supposed to be. I'm very lost. Even reading the OP on May CaC didn't really help me. If anything, I'm even more confused now. A lot of the stuff that was seemingly ignored with my judging seems to be emphasized as if it's important...

    And I know just myself is a small sample size, but I won the competition, and even chico himself said he was judging my entry "to the very last detail", which was clearly not the case.

    Onto some personal notes. CaCs have been part of the reason I've continued faking over all these years. I love them. I really do. But if it stays this way I will, unfortunately, have very little inspiration to enter them. It's unfortunate that this all happened, honestly, because I was super excited about our future and how much we could grow. The community set looks like it's gonna be finished within a reasonable amount of time, there's a lot of activity, etc. etc. But suddenly this was dropped on us and now all of our attention is on it. A very big part of why I did CaCs is because I love feedback. I love getting feedback from everything I do, positive or negative. This judging doesn't feel like feedback.

    I'm very glad to see I'm not the only person who shares these concerns over the new system, and I hope we can at least improve its flaws, together.

    Also, if any of this came off as hostile or aggressive, know that is not my intent, as I am only trying to convey a message.

    - Nyan
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2020
  9. chico Aspiring Trainer



    LOL dude, chill. I get it. You're upset because you didn't get the points you expected. But you're taking it waaaay too seriously. The aim of the contest is to have one more incentive to make cards. Not to get X points for a card. Besides, you seem to keep making baseless assumptions about how my system works, ignoring whatever explanation I give you or spin it to fit your own narrative. It's difficult to keep a productive conversation like that.

    Yep. That's why I said feedback was a thing to be improved.

    Not necessarily. Have you considered the possibility that cards this round were very good in general? Before multiplying by 2 there were more ties. Though, I'll admit the math can be improved to make the system more nuanced.

    Yeah, I noticed. But the part I critiqued was specifically taken from SM blanks. If you're gonna copy an element from an existing blank, you should do it well.

    Huh. Well, lists are easier to read than a wall of text for me but I guess I can change that. Also Jabber suggested having points deducted at the end of each note were hard to keep track of and may be seen negatively. That's why I didn't include them. That said, I don't think that's very important. You should be more focused on the notes themselves rather than the points.

    Art value in a vacuum is subjective. Art value in context, is not. Even then, there's a lot of variables that can be measured. If you don't know how to do it, it doesn't mean it can't be done.

    They aren't judged as text based entries.

    That's partially true. However, it's pretty clear to me how the image categories were formed. Font/Placement split from Believability/Playability and Aesthetics from Creativity/Originality. If the power distribution is not changed to account for how different image-based cards are from text-based cards then it's basically the same system with some new names.

    Everyone is graded on the same scale, yes. But the end result of each participant is not the same. If people want, we could give participation awards to everyone. But then there's no reason to defend a point-based system, old or new.

    The guide I've read does not agree with you XD And even then, knowing how much is a category worth does not mean one knows how many points are going to be deducted and for what. I say this as a former contestant. You only start getting it once you have several contests in.

    I don't see the lack of full transparency as a problem either. Not only because the previous system wasn't completely transparent (no contest is, really), but because I don't want people to get obsessed over points. I don't think trying to game the system is healthy at all. Not to mention that everything should be as important to pay attention to for the participant, even if when it comes to judging things have different values.

    In all the times I've participated in CaCs, not once did it occur to me to complain at the judge about why they were docking that many points for a thing that seemed unimportant to me, for example. That's because I respect the role of the judge and I decided voluntarily to enter the contest. Even if I didn't know exactly how things were graded. I get this is a new system and you want to know the details. And I'm not entirely against it, but knowing absolutely everything so anybody can exploit the system is asking too much. That said, I'm much more confortable discussing these things with judge Jabber.

    Elitism is a bias. With that logic, then there would be no card games for children, or even new players that never touched a card in their lives. Their perspective is as valid as yours, mine, or anybody else's. Remember that Pokémon is a franchise aimed at children.

    As for the previous system, saying it was perfect is quite arrogant, too. No system is perfect. It doesn't matter if it was used for a long time. That could just mean you didn't want to change it or you didn't know how to. It is convenient you say that because it favored you multiple times. I know because I've looked at the results. It's fine if you don't want to participate. I just think it's a bit childish to take that decision over this. However, I will take your feedback into consideration. Cheers!
  10. chico Aspiring Trainer


    I get that. We both forgot about that. Though, I kept working the system until the very last moment so...

    chico said: ↑
    I didn't dock points for using a standard blank. That's like the base, the "0". It can go up or down.
    Then why make it out of 5...? If you want to award extra points for using a visually interesting blank, put those points somewhere else.

    When you try create a good system you need to account for every possibility. In this case, the floor is higher to account for the cases were a low-quality standard blank is used, for example. Asche's blank are an automatic 2 because they are the easily available standard. I should note the previous system does have these higher floors as well. It's standard tactic.

    That has to do with floating numbers. When the formula multiplies, the results have a point of difference that breaks the tie. However, on its own the formula is not that accurate. That's why I need to get more nuanced with the points. Having a 100-pt system also makes the difference between cards more apparent.

    Fair. Since it's the last category that was created, it needs more work. Though, that doesn't mean it's unimportant. Having the correct PokéDex info grants accuracy points, for example.

    He chose to do a full-art card that was balanced for the era EXs were introduced. The only full-art cards from that period are EXs as far as I know. And those card tend to have SFX (see Keldeo EX FA).

    You're right in that judging wording was the most troublesome area for me. That's a thing to be improved for sure. I may also bump up text power a bit but as I said, I don't want it to have that much.

    I already explained that. And it's not disrespectful at all. Quite the contrary, I'd say. The extra points are to foster creativity, community (when you use another's custom blank) and reward the effort that goes into making custom blanks. That's something that was not present in the previous system.

    Yes, that is exactly why. You said it yourself. Blood, sweat and tears, right? Of course, no one is expected to accomplish that. But the ones who do, will be rewarded. And the ones who do not should just focus in other areas. Though I do have some checks that make the scale not as tilted towards custom stuff

    That's why your card was special. I don't see the problem there. Especially because the contest is supposed to reward originality. And as I said, I already have checks for this. There's no single way to win.

    Not really. That's why playability is more important now. It's just another approach, instead of crippling aesthetics. You don't need to make visually amazing stuff if you focus more on how the card is played.

    I tried my best, being a new judge and all. I'm sorry you feel that way and that you're that harsh on me. Now I get why I'm the only one to volunteered for this LOL But for sure, the system and workflow is very new and needs more work. Thanks for your feedback.
    Last edited: May 4, 2020
  11. AshCo Ouchies!


    I think this here is what resonates with me from the small glance I've given this whole thing, but I would like to add to this-please excuse me if this has already been said.

    I'm no expert on image-based fakes, believe me, I've never done one besides the nightmare Super Mr. Mimie I did in paint that doesn't even count. And I sure do not deserve to have a say in this because I've never done a CaC competition. But I've been looking at this thread because my interest in image-based fakes has been kinda piqued recently. Seeing the results not give as many points for using a basic-looking blank, from my point of view, is incentivizing that people who do image-based fakes absolutely MUST make a brand-new fake that has all kinds of cool-looking bells and whistles to it to have any shot of being scored as well as others who do the same. I'm no master at photoshop and I feel like I'd try more to make a card that looks both official, yet aesthetically pleasing, such as a cool card with some interesting effects using an e-reader blank and my own art. I'm aware it's only a small few points but something about it just doesn't seem right.

    Because of this, I don't feel like my card would be as "valid" in this judging system, even if it's a minimal difference.

    Again, I'm no expert so please, to anyone here if I'm not getting something here, please just ignore this-I really have no suggestions to change this either and I'd rather the people who have been doing this for years as opposed to some rando who doesn't come around this part of the forum as often as others.

    And of course, by NO means am I saying that cards that don't look like an already-existing card are invalid. There's DEFINITELY a place for those too and I think that some of the entries this month, such as the one @Nyan made were incredible from a quick glance through the entries. I just think everyone doing image-based fakes should have an equal opportunity to score well. Maybe a "creativity" section, that awards points over a creative looking blank, OR an effect? I don't know-I'm sorry for poking my head into this affair though, especially for someone who's not FULLY aware of things here.
    Clam, Nyan, CardPone and 1 other person like this.

Viewing Now: 0 Members + 0 Guests

There are no registered members viewing this forum. Why not register here and start a discussion?

Share This Page