"Whenever a spell or ability you control puts one or more -1/-1 counters on a creature enchanted player controls, Curse of Burning Sands deals 1 damage to that player."
"Whenever a spell or ability you control puts one or more -1/-1 counters on a creature enchanted player controls, Curse of Burning Sands deals 1 damage to that player."
If you can be the enchanted player, no. If only an opponent can ever be enchanted player, yes. In other words, if the previous line is "enchant player", no. If it is "enchant opponent", yes.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MCC - Winner (6): Oct 2014, Apr Nov 2017, Jan 2018, Apr Jun 2019 || Host (15): Dec 2014, Apr Jul Aug Dec 2015, Mar Jul Aug Oct 2016, Feb Jul 2017, Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) || Judge (34): every month from Nov 2014 to Nov 2016 except Oct 2015, every month from Feb to Jul 2017 except Apr 2017, then Oct 2017, May Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) CCL - Winner (3): Jul 2016 (tied with Flatline), May 2017, Jul 2019 (last one here) || Host (5): Feb 2015, Mar Apr May Jun 2016 DCC - Winner (1): Mar 2015 (tied with Piar) || Host (3): May Oct 2015, Jan 2016
• The two public custom sets I've been part a part of the design team for: "Brotherhood of Ormos" - Blog post with all info - set thread - design skeleton / card list || "Extinctia: Homo Evanuit" - Blog post with all info - set thread - card list spreadsheet
• "The Lion's Lair", my article series about MTG and custom card design in particular. Latest article here. Here is the article index.Rather outdated by now, and based on the old MCC rubric, but I'm leaving this here for anybody that might be interested anyway.
• My only public attempt at being a writer: the story of my Leonin custom planeswalker Jeff Lionheart. (I have a very big one that I'm working on right now but that's private for now, and I don't know if I will ever actually publish it, and I also have ideas for multiple future ones, including one where I'm going to reprise Jeff.)
I. Power Level
I think the power level of the card is being overblown. Citadel Siege is the obvious comparison to the card, and Citadel Siege is significantly stronger. Not only is Citadel Siege more versatile, but it also asks nothing of your deck construction. You indicated that my card would be included in every control deck in Standard, yet Citadel Siege saw virtually no play. Now, I intentionally designed the card in such a way that it would be (i) weaker in Limited and (ii) potentially stronger in Constructed than Citadel Siege. My thoughts below.
(i) Limited: As someone who jammed 150+ FRF-KTK drafts on MTGO, I can tell you that 95% of the time the +1/+1 counter mode was used for Citadel Siege. That ability has been removed. In its place, the second mode of Citadel Siege has been made more powerful if you have a desert. In a vacuum, I think Brutality of the Second Sun is stronger than the second mode of Citadel Siege if you have 3 or more deserts in your deck, a tad worse if you have 2, significantly worse if you have 1, and much much worse if you have zero. A comparison of this card to Citadel Siege for limited is not apt though, because the effect of Brutality of the Second Sun was practically flavor text on Citadel Siege.
Now, regarding whether I would want this card inserted into the AKH block format, I would say "yes" in Amonkhet and "no" in Hours of Devastation. I'm only 23 drafts in in Hours of Devastation, but the huge number of wraths (and some other factors) has made all of my Naya aggressive decks perform well below where they should. If the scales hadn't been tipped so heavily in favor of control, and if there were a green Forsake the Worldly variant printed in this block at common/uncommon, I would be enthusiastic about inserting this card into the format. I understood the reasons for not wanting to include one in Amonkhet x3, but here in HOU there really should be a green enchantment-killing effect. Maybe Brutality of the Second Sun (and all these wraths!) should be mythic as well. Rare would have been fine in Amonkhet, but given the general timbre of Hours of Devastation's limited format I'd say mythic would be best here. I designed the card before playing so many drafts though.
(ii) Constructed: This would be a good (but not superb) card in Constructed if there were reasonable multicolor deserts for control to have access to. What is most important to note is that I tied the more powerful of the abilities (tapping the creature) to the part that demanded a greater degree of deck contortion - the card would be unplayable in Standard if it didn't tap opposing creatures 90%+ of the time. Given the set as it is, you'd have to jam so many non-basic mono-color comes-into-play-tapped lands or mono-color painlands that you could be a maximum of 2 colors. Do I think it could be done? Yes. Do I think that this card is a reward for contorting your deck in this fashion? Yes. But do I think it would be oppressive? Absolutely not. Do I think it would see play in this Standard? Doubtful. Solemnity is the greater reward for going White, and you can't put both in your deck.
II. Flavor
The general flavor of the card is obvious. The sun over the desert is making it hard for the former Hekma denizens to survive in the desert. Has Biblical callbacks to the wandering of the Israelites in the desert, as does Open into Wonder to Moses parting the waves of the Red Sea, and it suits the flavor of the story of Amonkhet perfectly.
Regarding the flavor text, wailing and beating of breasts are terms used to describe those in agony and deep-seated existential pain. They are common Biblical tropes, and are employed by various literary authors, including Alexander Pope in his famous Rape of the Lock. The use of "its" there is also correct - sometimes in English you de-gender a baby. "Babe" is also correct - "baby" would be fine but less poetic and less befitting in this instance. "A babe in its mother's arms" is a common expression in English. Jesus is often described as a "babe wrapped in swaddling clothes"; few pastors would say "baby wrapped in swaddling clothes". Given the gravity of the situation being described, the heightened poeticism works well.
III. Color
The card feels white. With a flavor change it wouldn't bother me in black, but Citadel Siege-style cards feel white to me. Placing -1/-1 counters on an opposing creature during combat feels white, black, or red. Enchantments that physically do something during combat (Citadel Siege or Aurification) instead of have a static effect feel mostly White rather than Black. I suspect this is because white control tends to be the control that operates less at instant speed than blue, black, or red, and white is the color that cares most about "combat". Larceny and Raiders' Spoils are the only Black non-Aura enchantments printed in the past 15+ years that ask you to physically do something as a result of combat, and both of those are far cries from the style of effect going on in Brutality of the Second Sun. I think the card *should* be White, and it *could* be Black or Red. Its persistent prison-like effect makes me want to shy away from it being Red, and I'd shy away from it being Black simply because the prison-esque nature of the card's tapping and -1/-1 counters operates on a white axis. Having one White card in a block that gives -1/-1 counters to opposing creatures seems fine in a block that utilizes them, especially for a rare/mythic card that fits the story and flavor of that block perfectly.
(i) Limited: As someone who jammed 150+ FRF-KTK drafts on MTGO, I can tell you that 95% of the time the +1/+1 counter mode was used for Citadel Siege. That ability has been removed. In its place, the second mode of Citadel Siege has been made more powerful if you have a desert. In a vacuum, I think Brutality of the Second Sun is stronger than the second mode of Citadel Siege if you have 3 or more deserts in your deck, a tad worse if you have 2, significantly worse if you have 1, and much much worse if you have zero.
Fate Reforged is widely cited as having some of the most overpowered rares in draft in a long time, and Citadel Siege is among the most powerful cards in that set. Having your card be comparable to a clearly overpowered card is not good, even if your card is somewhat more conditional. Additionally, I think you're underestimating how strong the Desert clause is on this card. Shrinking a creature and gaining a life per turn in addition to tapping that creature is a huge upside.
The general flavor of the card is obvious. The sun over the desert is making it hard for the former Hekma denizens to survive in the desert. Has Biblical callbacks to the wandering of the Israelites in the desert, as does Open into Wonder to Moses parting the waves of the Red Sea, and it suits the flavor of the story of Amonkhet perfectly.
Regarding the flavor text, wailing and beating of breasts are terms used to describe those in agony and deep-seated existential pain. They are common Biblical tropes, and are employed by various literary authors, including Alexander Pope in his famous Rape of the Lock. The use of "its" there is also correct - sometimes in English you de-gender a baby. "Babe" is also correct - "baby" would be fine but less poetic and less befitting in this instance. "A babe in its mother's arms" is a common expression in English. Jesus is often described as a "babe wrapped in swaddling clothes"; few pastors would say "baby wrapped in swaddling clothes". Given the gravity of the situation being described, the heightened poeticism works well.
How often do you see common biblical tropes in Magic nowadays? Flavor text written in a biblical style is equally absent too. I'm not saying that the flavor text is poorly written — it isn't, but it is out of place in this card game. The reference would be obscure for many players, and that your judge is also confused by it should not be surprising.
Admireable - if you played FRF-KTK at all, you would know that Citadel Siege was used 95-99% of the time to put 2 +1/+1 counters on one of your creatures. In Limited, my card does not compare to the functionality of Citadel Siege at all.
Your last point about my flavor text makes no sense. You don't need to have read one word of the Bible for the flavor to make perfect sense in the world of Amonkhet. Nicol Bolas destroyed the barrier of the Hekma, and the citizens of Amonkhet now have to brave the deserts. Now they get to experience the brutality of the second sun. Flavor text on rares is often used to highlight key aspects of the story. My card's flavor text does that beautifully.
There are also a lot of Biblical allusions in this set. The emphasis on Locusts and the art on many of the invocations (Capsize, Boil, Opposition, Pact of Negation) to name a few. But, like I said, the card stands on its own within the story and lore of Amonkhet itself.
Sometimes you get judgements that are agreeable, sometimes not. I certainly wasn't happy with how my first round entry was judged this month as there were many points that I felt were objectively wrong, but I wasn't in the mood to dispute it this go round.
That said, arguing about how perfect or not your flavor feels is very subjective. If your judge felt it didn't make a whole a lot of sense and the word choices felt off, arguing that his or her feelings on the matter are wrong don't really go anywhere.
Looking at your card myself, I personally get the flavor of your card, though I don't think the flavor text is very "magic-friendly." The word choices are a bit unclear and written in a way I'd expect for a more adult level novel, which is not typical for magic cards.
Definitely. My main criticism of my card's flavor would be that it is a tad too "adult". I let the Trail of Tears seriousness and position in the Magic story get to me there.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Follow me on Twitch if you're interested in watching competitive league drafts.
Play MTGO? Check out my latest MTGO finance articles on Quiet Speculation.
So I am totally cool with my card not making it through to Round 3, but I did want to ask some questions in order to understand how the MCC actually operates/what expectation I should have of my judges with regards to flavor as well.
1. What is the level of expectation regarding mid-contest changes to the rules? To be honest, I am not on the forum all that often - since I had a ton of obligations this week. (It was doubly disappointing to not advance in the CCL because of a single missed critique) By every metric originally, my card met the original challenge and it wasn't until today that I found out that a new clarification was added that turned my card into a "bend" for what judges would be looking for - if not outright potentially disqualify me. In cases like this and in the CCL, I ask that judges please kindly send a PM to all participants regarding rules changes (even if not those who explicitly did not meet the challenge). This way if I just have time to check the front page, I can see that someone needed me and respond.
2. With regards to flavor, I received this critique:
"The name of this card is alright; it does its job and nothing more. The flavor and the mechanics of this card mesh well enough. However, the flavor text is unprofessional; this quote that has been credited to Hapatra is not at all within her character as a person. With that said, I find the pun of this flavor text to be cringe-inducing, and that is not a good feeling for the flavor of a Magic card."
While I understand that flavor is super subjective, is there an onus on judges who are deducting points (or at least it seems to me that there should be) regarding established Magic characters to be familiar with the Magic Story as it is not being told exclusively through the cards? Like if you go here, http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/magic-story/hour-promise-2017-06-28, one of the telling and humanizing traits of Hapatra is her love of puns and making people around her cringe, which is why I overreached on the flavor text and for the pun in the name of the creature as well - to replicate as if Hapatra had named the creature. If it's a low expectation, I'll adjust accordingly (but since we can't offer designer notes the way a card designer normally would), but this was admittedly disappointing, since flavor is the one piece I pride my cards most on.
Either way- what's done is done, and I'll be back next month, but I hope that some clarity can be offered/policies can be adjusted in the future to help players like myself who are just joining.
Sometimes you get judgements that are agreeable, sometimes not. I certainly wasn't happy with how my first round entry was judged this month as there were many points that I felt were objectively wrong, but I wasn't in the mood to dispute it this go round.
To IcariiFA,
If you would ever like any of your cards that I have judged to be individually reviewed, feel free to message me privately. I am human; I make errors. I know that I have been aloof on these forums in the past, but I truly do want to do right by the Custom Magic community (not just MTGSalvation, mind). In particular, I have seen your work and believe that you definitely know what you are doing when it comes to design. I had no ill will when I made my judgments last week (at least, I do not believe that I did, and I hope that can be believed to be the case).
I will even explain the layers problem that I mentioned, should you like. I only warn that it might end up to be a complex read.
1. What is the level of expectation regarding mid-contest changes to the rules? To be honest, I am not on the forum all that often - since I had a ton of obligations this week. By every metric originally, my card met the original challenge and it wasn't until today that I found out that a new clarification was added that turned my card into a "bend" for what judges would be looking for - if not outright potentially disqualify me. In cases like this and in the CCL, I ask that judges please kindly send a PM to all participants regarding rules changes (even if not those who explicitly did not meet the challenge). This way if I just have time to check the front page, I can see that someone needed me and respond.
This month's host, bravelion83, indeed clarified the rules of the main challenge after many of this week's submissions had been made. However, in his defense, I do not believe that he ever changed the rules of the main challenge.
Main challenge: Design a card that contains the phrase "put (some number of) -1/-1 counter(s) on (some number of) (target) creature(s) (target/an) opponent controls". Please read clarifications.
(...)
The card needs to contain that exact pattern in its rules text. The only adjustments you can make are the parts in brackets. Your card can do anything else in addition to the required text.
As a public service announcement to everyone: It should be every contestant's responsibility to read and understand the clarifications that come with most MCC weeks, especially when the host explicitly calls for it. Plus, anyone should feel free ask a host (either by a public post in this thread or by a private message) for further clarification should one be unsure of anything.
2.... While I understand that flavor is super subjective, is there an onus on judges who are deducting points regarding established Magic characters to be familiar with the Magic Story as it is not being told exclusively through the cards? Like if you go here, http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/magic-story/hour-promise-2017-06-28, one of the telling and humanizing traits of Hapatra is her love of puns and making people around her cringe, which is why I overreached on the flavor text and for the pun in the name of the creature as well - to replicate as if Hapatra had named the creature. If it's a low expectation, I'll adjust accordingly (but since we can't offer designer notes the way a card designer normally would), but this was admittedly disappointing, since flavor is the one piece I pride my cards most on.
Either way- what's done is done, and I'll be back next month, but I hope that some clarity can be offered/policies can be adjusted in the future to help players like myself who are just joining.
To SubSilentio,
I sincerely apologize for my mistake with no excuses and no justifications. I can only agree with you now, publicly, that you are right and I was wrong.
It was irresponsible of me as a judge to not find time and seek my own clarification and not merely assume based off of repeated past experiences of new users posting silly flavor text attributed to important and canonical characters. I am at fault here for this, and I appreciate the humility.
The only logical consolation that I can offer is as follows: even if I were to elevate your score in the flavor criterion by one and a half points, the maximum that I can reasonably add, you would still be half a point short of a second place tie. Nowhere else in my judgment upon thorough reviewing do I find any other place were I could add points with this insight (except I would need to post my new final thoughts on your card in the aftermath). I can make this edit to my post if you would like, even if it cannot change the outcome of the bracket.
But, I sincerely thank you for bringing this to my attention. Firstly, I hope that you do not feel ill will towards me as a result of my display of negligent hubris; secondly, I hope that I can become a better judge as a result of this in the aftermath with thanks to you.
Admittedly, should you indeed return to participate and compete in future months, I further hope that you would not dread my judgments towards your future cards. Again, I can only apologize with the utmost sincerity that I can realistically communicate over the internet.
If you (or anyone) possesses any concerns with my judgments, additional or otherwise, please do not hesitate to let me know. I will do my best to be more receptive to criticism in the future, as that is a responsibility of mine to be a better MCC judge for the future months to come.
First and foremost I wanted to thank you for your reply and to publicly acknowledge that I appreciate the amount of work you and the other judges put into the contest. It is a ton of work and for you to take the time out of your day to not only judge thoroughly but also to respond means the world.
Since nesting quotes is super difficult for me on this forum, I’ll just respond very briefly to the two main topic areas.
Regarding the initial contest, because the clarification was not out at the time, I (and apparently a number of other contestants) took the challenge to mean that so long as your card had an ability that puts -1/-1 counters on an opponent’s creature(s), that you were in good shape. This could not logically be something that puts -1/-1s on all creatures, as I get how that would not be following the exact pattern since you are never targeting an opponent’s creature. That said, there is no reason to assume that the card cannot be “challenge plus a cookie” (e.g. If the challenge was “make a creature that grants a creature you control double strike,” logically it seems to follow that a card that says “Give target creature your opponent controls and target creature you control double strike until end of turn” does logically follow the “A+B being inclusive of A” so it seems like it would meet the parameters cleanly. For a change that adjusts the entire scope of the challenge to be “Do X but not Y” I think that something like that should at least be messaged to contestants who submitted early on but who may not have known about the adjustment.
Regarding the flavor, I truly hold no ill will towards you or your judging either now or in the future – puns are always a substantial risk and I understand they can be used as a crutch by new players for lazy writing. Hell they are used by lazy writers in tv shows too, so I totally get the gut react cringe. (It made me cringe writing it to be honest.) As a player whose goal first and foremost is flavor, I’d love to know what you think of the flavor if you have time in retrospect, but only insofar as any feedback from an established judge on the forum is super appreciated and good to have.
Don’t worry, I’ll definitely be back in other competitions and I’m excited to grow as a competitor as well as a judge (if I have a good month, I’m happy to give up some time for this).
(I'll make no quotes to avoid this being too long.)
About the rest, first I want to point out that I did not change the challenge in any way while it was underway. Not a single word in the main challenge has changed since I first posted the round thread. I always intended the challenge to be like that. What happened is that the following day, checking on the thread as I always try to do at least once a day when I host (not every day I am able to but the vast majority of days I do), I realized that a lot of people misinterpreted the challenge, so I posted an additional clarification post to, well, clarify the exact intent of the challenge. Maybe the challenge wasn't clear enough in the beginning, and if you find that's the case I apologize, but I can tell you one thing: it's not by chance that I chose to ask for a specific wording in the main challenge rather than a generic "Design a card that can put -1/-1 counters on opposing creatures". I thought spelling out a mandatory template for everyone to follow was the cleanest way to avoid misinterpretation. I figured out telling people exactly how the card had to read was the best way to ensure the intent of the challenge was respected. It turns out I was wrong in that assumption and needed to further clarify that intent. I also apologize if I wasn't clear enough that was just a further clarification and not a change of the main challenge. In fact, again, not a single word in the OP changed. I now wish I thought about taking a screenshot of the challenge as I posted it, but unfortunately I didn't, so everyone will have to trust my word on that. I will do it right now for round 3, should that need arise (hopefully not).
TLDR: I saw people misinterpreted the challenge and I had to either clarify or DQ a bunch of people. I chose the former. I think I made the right choice.
@ Sub_Silentio: I'm really sorry if you had a bad experience because of this, and please don't let this be the thing that drives you away. I definitely look forward to seeing more of your designs in the future! For what it means, I really liked how you did on your first try. I see a lot of potential in you as a custom card designer, potential that I would be sad to see gone for so little. I also encourage you to try judging if it's something you feel you want to do. And don't think it's too early: I myself judged on just the third month I was an active member of this community (don't let my join date fool you, while I signed up in 2010 I wasn't an active poster until 2014). I'd also definitely help you should you need it, as I've already done with several judges on their first experience.
---
EDIT 2: random things as I go back to read again the last posts.
About sending out a PM to the specific players involved: I'll be honest, I just didn't think of it. If I had, I would have totally done it. My bad.
About Hapatra's flavor and love of puns: that's quite evident for one who reads the weekly story. I do, but nobody is forced to read it every week, or read it at all. That obviously includes judges. I feel Blydden has already clarified well enough, and even apologized about that, but I just felt I also had to point this out as the month's host.
As a public service announcement to everyone: It should be every contestant's responsibility to read and understand the clarifications that come with most MCC weeks, especially when the host explicitly calls for it. Plus, anyone should feel free ask a host (either by a public post in this thread or by a private message) for further clarification should one be unsure of anything.
I know I said no quotes, but I just had to quote this. That's 100% true, and many thanks to Blydden for writing this out. By the way, I can say that one person did write privately to me for clarification, even if I'm obviously not saying who that is.
About being more friendly to new players, I can assure everyone that's one of my highest priorities. I already always try to do that, but I am definitely open to hearing how I (and all the CCCG community really) can do it even better.
About the CCL: things pertaining to the CCL should be discussed in its own discussion thread, not here.
Finally, I would really like to avoid discussing real religion here, both because I don't feel it's appropriate on a forum about a game and because of other personal reasons I won't tell.
I think that's all for now. Again, I apologize for the length. Thanks to anyone who read this all.
MCC - Winner (6): Oct 2014, Apr Nov 2017, Jan 2018, Apr Jun 2019 || Host (15): Dec 2014, Apr Jul Aug Dec 2015, Mar Jul Aug Oct 2016, Feb Jul 2017, Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) || Judge (34): every month from Nov 2014 to Nov 2016 except Oct 2015, every month from Feb to Jul 2017 except Apr 2017, then Oct 2017, May Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) CCL - Winner (3): Jul 2016 (tied with Flatline), May 2017, Jul 2019 (last one here) || Host (5): Feb 2015, Mar Apr May Jun 2016 DCC - Winner (1): Mar 2015 (tied with Piar) || Host (3): May Oct 2015, Jan 2016
• The two public custom sets I've been part a part of the design team for: "Brotherhood of Ormos" - Blog post with all info - set thread - design skeleton / card list || "Extinctia: Homo Evanuit" - Blog post with all info - set thread - card list spreadsheet
• "The Lion's Lair", my article series about MTG and custom card design in particular. Latest article here. Here is the article index.Rather outdated by now, and based on the old MCC rubric, but I'm leaving this here for anybody that might be interested anyway.
• My only public attempt at being a writer: the story of my Leonin custom planeswalker Jeff Lionheart. (I have a very big one that I'm working on right now but that's private for now, and I don't know if I will ever actually publish it, and I also have ideas for multiple future ones, including one where I'm going to reprise Jeff.)
Hey Brave, totally appreciate the kind words - and rest assured that I will definitely be in it to both stay and judge. I had just wanted to express concerns generally as (since I think I am the newest player who played this month) about how we could possibly try and make the game more friendly for players who are like me. Again, not angry or upset by any means, just was hoping to nail down the level of expectations is all.
Regarding your challenge here, I believe you that the challenge itself did not change, but I do think there is a categorical difference between the two challenges (pre/post clarification). Consider the example here:
Challenge 1
Design a card that puts -1/-1 counters on your opponent's creatures.
Technically within this are all these permutations:
A card that just puts -1/-1 counters on your opponent's creatures
A card that puts -1/-1 counters on all creatures
A card that puts -1/-1 counters on your creature and your opponent's creature
By the letter of the law then, these were all viable as opposed to the challenge mentioning the word "exclusively" in clarification which then turns the challenge into only allowing
Challenge 2
Design a card that puts -1/-1 counters on exclusively your opponent's creatures.
A card that just puts -1/-1 counters on your opponent's creatures
A person, then who designed to focus on either of the other two permutations mentioned in the first list is now put in a position where their card is no longer compliant with the parameters of the contest. It seems to me that the scope changed on it pretty dramatically, especially given how many people you mentioned were not designing according to what you'd intended.
It's also a really (on a side note) difficult challenge to make a green card here - which was one of the primary colors of -1/-1 counters in AKH/HOD, but their design was for undercosted creatures with big butts that have to place -1/-1 counters on your own creatures, which is what inspired my design.
Regardless, I think you are doing an excellent job running the event and it was never intended to be a referendum on you or your ability to host - I've had a ton of fun so far. I was merely asking that hosts in the future consider (they don't even *have* to, just think about) the relative merits of helping players whose designs you see are not meeting the goals of the round to avoid confusion when a new clarification is added. (If someone designs like an Instant when the challenge is for a Sorcery, that's a whole other story)
I really appreciate your understanding and civil tone. You went to the core of what happened: my intent was for this to be exactly what you called "challenge 2", but many people understood it as "challenge 1". That was exactly the problem, and one I probably put myself into when writing the challenge... obviously that was not intended.
About green cards being difficult, challenges are kind of supposed to be hard, especially subchallenges that are optional. As a host, you want the players being uncertain whether to go for the hard thing and potentially get extra points out of it, or make the easier thing but giving up a point, which sometimes actually gives you a higher chance of advancing. There's no point in just giving out points for free! (this pun was intended instead )
I hope that's the beginning of a long stay here for you, and most of all I'm very glad to hear you had fun anyway. That's the main thing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MCC - Winner (6): Oct 2014, Apr Nov 2017, Jan 2018, Apr Jun 2019 || Host (15): Dec 2014, Apr Jul Aug Dec 2015, Mar Jul Aug Oct 2016, Feb Jul 2017, Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) || Judge (34): every month from Nov 2014 to Nov 2016 except Oct 2015, every month from Feb to Jul 2017 except Apr 2017, then Oct 2017, May Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) CCL - Winner (3): Jul 2016 (tied with Flatline), May 2017, Jul 2019 (last one here) || Host (5): Feb 2015, Mar Apr May Jun 2016 DCC - Winner (1): Mar 2015 (tied with Piar) || Host (3): May Oct 2015, Jan 2016
• The two public custom sets I've been part a part of the design team for: "Brotherhood of Ormos" - Blog post with all info - set thread - design skeleton / card list || "Extinctia: Homo Evanuit" - Blog post with all info - set thread - card list spreadsheet
• "The Lion's Lair", my article series about MTG and custom card design in particular. Latest article here. Here is the article index.Rather outdated by now, and based on the old MCC rubric, but I'm leaving this here for anybody that might be interested anyway.
• My only public attempt at being a writer: the story of my Leonin custom planeswalker Jeff Lionheart. (I have a very big one that I'm working on right now but that's private for now, and I don't know if I will ever actually publish it, and I also have ideas for multiple future ones, including one where I'm going to reprise Jeff.)
At this point it would seem appropriate to just pull the plug on June's MCC. Necarg is now almost a full six days late for his own deadline (not to mention the fact that we're almost three weeks into July already). (Are we sure we don't want to retroactively count June for the infraction list? ) Even if he does eventually decide to finish what he started, I doubt anybody is overcoming the 5 point spot given to Hittite by bravelion. That said, I vote we just give the month to Hittite and move on. Congrats Hittite!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
(22 Total) - October 2014; December 2014; January 2015; April 2015; June 2015; August 2015; September 2015; November 2015; December 2015(T); January 2016; March 2016(T); April 2016; June 2016; October 2016; December 2016(T); February 2017; April 2017; December 2017; November 2018(T); January 2019; April 2019; June 2019
(8 Total) - May 2015; May 2016; June 2016; August 2016; October 2016; December 2016; October 2017; May 2019
(7 Total) - September 2015; October 2015; January 2016; March 2016; April 2016; July 2016(T); March 2019(T)
At this point it would seem appropriate to just pull the plug on June's MCC. Necarg is now almost a full six days late for his own deadline (not to mention the fact that we're almost three weeks into July already). (Are we sure we don't want to retroactively count June for the infraction list? ) Even if he does eventually decide to finish what he started, I doubt anybody is overcoming the 5 point spot given to Hittite by bravelion. That said, I vote we just give the month to Hittite and move on. Congrats Hittite!
I'm gonna second this one. The contestants deserve a resolution, especially after a round with awesome entries.
I think it's fair to say regardless of the Infraction list that applies only to july forward, Necrag has proved that he is not capable of hosting the MCC and shouldn't be allowed to do so again for a while due to multiple delays on his part and poor communication.
I'll message you privately, Blyyden. No ill will, but I'll share some thoughts.
I think it's fair to say regardless of the Infraction list that applies only to july forward, Necrag has proved that he is not capable of hosting the MCC and shouldn't be allowed to do so again for a while due to multiple delays on his part and poor communication.
I agree with this sentiment. Especially considering that June isn't the first month in which he's caused delays.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
(22 Total) - October 2014; December 2014; January 2015; April 2015; June 2015; August 2015; September 2015; November 2015; December 2015(T); January 2016; March 2016(T); April 2016; June 2016; October 2016; December 2016(T); February 2017; April 2017; December 2017; November 2018(T); January 2019; April 2019; June 2019
(8 Total) - May 2015; May 2016; June 2016; August 2016; October 2016; December 2016; October 2017; May 2019
(7 Total) - September 2015; October 2015; January 2016; March 2016; April 2016; July 2016(T); March 2019(T)
I think it's fair to say regardless of the Infraction list that applies only to july forward, Necrag has proved that he is not capable of hosting the MCC and shouldn't be allowed to do so again for a while due to multiple delays on his part and poor communication.
I agree with this sentiment. Especially considering that June isn't the first month in which he's caused delays.
I didn't want to be the first one to say this, but yes. The problem dates at least back to last November, when admirableadmiral and I had to take over the contest after one round because Necarg disappeared with no explanation.
I think it's fair to say regardless of the Infraction list that applies only to july forward, Necrag has proved that he is not capable of hosting the MCC and shouldn't be allowed to do so again for a while due to multiple delays on his part and poor communication.
I agree with this sentiment. Especially considering that June isn't the first month in which he's caused delays.
I didn't want to be the first one to say this, but yes. The problem dates at least back to last November, when admirableadmiral and I had to take over the contest after one round because Necarg disappeared with no explanation.
I actually forgot about that. I hate to call someone out, but at some point it is deserved.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
(22 Total) - October 2014; December 2014; January 2015; April 2015; June 2015; August 2015; September 2015; November 2015; December 2015(T); January 2016; March 2016(T); April 2016; June 2016; October 2016; December 2016(T); February 2017; April 2017; December 2017; November 2018(T); January 2019; April 2019; June 2019
(8 Total) - May 2015; May 2016; June 2016; August 2016; October 2016; December 2016; October 2017; May 2019
(7 Total) - September 2015; October 2015; January 2016; March 2016; April 2016; July 2016(T); March 2019(T)
I think it's fair to say regardless of the Infraction list that applies only to july forward, Necrag has proved that he is not capable of hosting the MCC and shouldn't be allowed to do so again for a while due to multiple delays on his part and poor communication.
I agree with this sentiment. Especially considering that June isn't the first month in which he's caused delays.
I didn't want to be the first one to say this, but yes. The problem dates at least back to last November, when admirableadmiral and I had to take over the contest after one round because Necarg disappeared with no explanation.
I actually forgot about that. I hate to call someone out, but at some point it is deserved.
Then I propose Necarg be banned from organizing and judging the MCC for a year. Considering in the past year he has failed to follow through as organizer twice and under the new infraction guidelines he would of been penalized at least seven times between the two months(which would result in a permanent ban from participating in any way), I think this is reasonably fair.
I just wanted to add to the conversation going on in the latest posts a no show from Necarg in July's Round 3, which forced me as host to alter the way the versus round works because I was left with an odd number of players (a situation for which we also still need a standard way to proceed, by the way...).
I always say real life always comes first, and I repeat that here, but I find it hard to believe that you can't even find just one minute in the whole day to post that you will not able to respect the deadline, even without explaining why. Nobody forces you to write about your personal life on a public forum, but I feel that at least a notice that you won't be able to make it should be due, and this is true for everyone: host, judges, players.
MCC - Winner (6): Oct 2014, Apr Nov 2017, Jan 2018, Apr Jun 2019 || Host (15): Dec 2014, Apr Jul Aug Dec 2015, Mar Jul Aug Oct 2016, Feb Jul 2017, Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) || Judge (34): every month from Nov 2014 to Nov 2016 except Oct 2015, every month from Feb to Jul 2017 except Apr 2017, then Oct 2017, May Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) CCL - Winner (3): Jul 2016 (tied with Flatline), May 2017, Jul 2019 (last one here) || Host (5): Feb 2015, Mar Apr May Jun 2016 DCC - Winner (1): Mar 2015 (tied with Piar) || Host (3): May Oct 2015, Jan 2016
• The two public custom sets I've been part a part of the design team for: "Brotherhood of Ormos" - Blog post with all info - set thread - design skeleton / card list || "Extinctia: Homo Evanuit" - Blog post with all info - set thread - card list spreadsheet
• "The Lion's Lair", my article series about MTG and custom card design in particular. Latest article here. Here is the article index.Rather outdated by now, and based on the old MCC rubric, but I'm leaving this here for anybody that might be interested anyway.
• My only public attempt at being a writer: the story of my Leonin custom planeswalker Jeff Lionheart. (I have a very big one that I'm working on right now but that's private for now, and I don't know if I will ever actually publish it, and I also have ideas for multiple future ones, including one where I'm going to reprise Jeff.)
I just wanted to add to the conversation going on in the latest posts a no show from Necarg in July's Round 3, which forced me as host to alter the way the versus round works because I was left with an odd number of players (a situation for which we also still need a standard way to proceed, by the way...).
I always say real life always comes first, and I repeat that here, but I find it hard to believe that you can't even find just one minute in the whole day to post that you will not able to respect the deadline, even without explaining why. Nobody forces you to write about your personal life on a public forum, but I feel that at least a notice that you won't be able to make it should be due, and this is true for everyone: host, judges, players.
Which is why the current infraction rules are more lenient if not completely forgiving if you actual communicate delays. Necrag has not done so several times this month and the past November, and has outright abandoned his job multiple. Hence my suggested one year ban period as a judge and organizer. He can still play of course, though going forward the new infraction rules would apply to him.
At this point you would have to be a glutton for punishment to participate in a Necarg hosted or judged MCC. I'm kind of surprised he was allowed to host again after ditching the last time. Even without the new infraction rules, it seems like it should go without saying that if you ditch your responsibility hosting, you shouldn't be allowed to host again. I suppose that's why the infraction rules are necessary.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
(22 Total) - October 2014; December 2014; January 2015; April 2015; June 2015; August 2015; September 2015; November 2015; December 2015(T); January 2016; March 2016(T); April 2016; June 2016; October 2016; December 2016(T); February 2017; April 2017; December 2017; November 2018(T); January 2019; April 2019; June 2019
(8 Total) - May 2015; May 2016; June 2016; August 2016; October 2016; December 2016; October 2017; May 2019
(7 Total) - September 2015; October 2015; January 2016; March 2016; April 2016; July 2016(T); March 2019(T)
If you're suggesting a permanent ban from organizing and/or judging in the MCC, I would be for it. I just wasn't sure if others would agree and proposed one year as a round figure.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
"Whenever a spell or ability you control puts one or more -1/-1 counters on a creature enchanted player controls, Curse of Burning Sands deals 1 damage to that player."
If you can be the enchanted player, no. If only an opponent can ever be enchanted player, yes. In other words, if the previous line is "enchant player", no. If it is "enchant opponent", yes.
MCC - Winner (6): Oct 2014, Apr Nov 2017, Jan 2018, Apr Jun 2019 || Host (15): Dec 2014, Apr Jul Aug Dec 2015, Mar Jul Aug Oct 2016, Feb Jul 2017, Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) || Judge (34): every month from Nov 2014 to Nov 2016 except Oct 2015, every month from Feb to Jul 2017 except Apr 2017, then Oct 2017, May Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here)
CCL - Winner (3): Jul 2016 (tied with Flatline), May 2017, Jul 2019 (last one here) || Host (5): Feb 2015, Mar Apr May Jun 2016
DCC - Winner (1): Mar 2015 (tied with Piar) || Host (3): May Oct 2015, Jan 2016
• The two public custom sets I've been part a part of the design team for:
"Brotherhood of Ormos" - Blog post with all info - set thread - design skeleton / card list || "Extinctia: Homo Evanuit" - Blog post with all info - set thread - card list spreadsheet
• "The Lion's Lair", my article series about MTG and custom card design in particular. Latest article here. Here is the article index. Rather outdated by now, and based on the old MCC rubric, but I'm leaving this here for anybody that might be interested anyway.
• My only public attempt at being a writer: the story of my Leonin custom planeswalker Jeff Lionheart. (I have a very big one that I'm working on right now but that's private for now, and I don't know if I will ever actually publish it, and I also have ideas for multiple future ones, including one where I'm going to reprise Jeff.)
I. Power Level
I think the power level of the card is being overblown. Citadel Siege is the obvious comparison to the card, and Citadel Siege is significantly stronger. Not only is Citadel Siege more versatile, but it also asks nothing of your deck construction. You indicated that my card would be included in every control deck in Standard, yet Citadel Siege saw virtually no play. Now, I intentionally designed the card in such a way that it would be (i) weaker in Limited and (ii) potentially stronger in Constructed than Citadel Siege. My thoughts below.
(i) Limited: As someone who jammed 150+ FRF-KTK drafts on MTGO, I can tell you that 95% of the time the +1/+1 counter mode was used for Citadel Siege. That ability has been removed. In its place, the second mode of Citadel Siege has been made more powerful if you have a desert. In a vacuum, I think Brutality of the Second Sun is stronger than the second mode of Citadel Siege if you have 3 or more deserts in your deck, a tad worse if you have 2, significantly worse if you have 1, and much much worse if you have zero. A comparison of this card to Citadel Siege for limited is not apt though, because the effect of Brutality of the Second Sun was practically flavor text on Citadel Siege.
Now, regarding whether I would want this card inserted into the AKH block format, I would say "yes" in Amonkhet and "no" in Hours of Devastation. I'm only 23 drafts in in Hours of Devastation, but the huge number of wraths (and some other factors) has made all of my Naya aggressive decks perform well below where they should. If the scales hadn't been tipped so heavily in favor of control, and if there were a green Forsake the Worldly variant printed in this block at common/uncommon, I would be enthusiastic about inserting this card into the format. I understood the reasons for not wanting to include one in Amonkhet x3, but here in HOU there really should be a green enchantment-killing effect. Maybe Brutality of the Second Sun (and all these wraths!) should be mythic as well. Rare would have been fine in Amonkhet, but given the general timbre of Hours of Devastation's limited format I'd say mythic would be best here. I designed the card before playing so many drafts though.
(ii) Constructed: This would be a good (but not superb) card in Constructed if there were reasonable multicolor deserts for control to have access to. What is most important to note is that I tied the more powerful of the abilities (tapping the creature) to the part that demanded a greater degree of deck contortion - the card would be unplayable in Standard if it didn't tap opposing creatures 90%+ of the time. Given the set as it is, you'd have to jam so many non-basic mono-color comes-into-play-tapped lands or mono-color painlands that you could be a maximum of 2 colors. Do I think it could be done? Yes. Do I think that this card is a reward for contorting your deck in this fashion? Yes. But do I think it would be oppressive? Absolutely not. Do I think it would see play in this Standard? Doubtful. Solemnity is the greater reward for going White, and you can't put both in your deck.
II. Flavor
The general flavor of the card is obvious. The sun over the desert is making it hard for the former Hekma denizens to survive in the desert. Has Biblical callbacks to the wandering of the Israelites in the desert, as does Open into Wonder to Moses parting the waves of the Red Sea, and it suits the flavor of the story of Amonkhet perfectly.
Regarding the flavor text, wailing and beating of breasts are terms used to describe those in agony and deep-seated existential pain. They are common Biblical tropes, and are employed by various literary authors, including Alexander Pope in his famous Rape of the Lock. The use of "its" there is also correct - sometimes in English you de-gender a baby. "Babe" is also correct - "baby" would be fine but less poetic and less befitting in this instance. "A babe in its mother's arms" is a common expression in English. Jesus is often described as a "babe wrapped in swaddling clothes"; few pastors would say "baby wrapped in swaddling clothes". Given the gravity of the situation being described, the heightened poeticism works well.
III. Color
The card feels white. With a flavor change it wouldn't bother me in black, but Citadel Siege-style cards feel white to me. Placing -1/-1 counters on an opposing creature during combat feels white, black, or red. Enchantments that physically do something during combat (Citadel Siege or Aurification) instead of have a static effect feel mostly White rather than Black. I suspect this is because white control tends to be the control that operates less at instant speed than blue, black, or red, and white is the color that cares most about "combat". Larceny and Raiders' Spoils are the only Black non-Aura enchantments printed in the past 15+ years that ask you to physically do something as a result of combat, and both of those are far cries from the style of effect going on in Brutality of the Second Sun. I think the card *should* be White, and it *could* be Black or Red. Its persistent prison-like effect makes me want to shy away from it being Red, and I'd shy away from it being Black simply because the prison-esque nature of the card's tapping and -1/-1 counters operates on a white axis. Having one White card in a block that gives -1/-1 counters to opposing creatures seems fine in a block that utilizes them, especially for a rare/mythic card that fits the story and flavor of that block perfectly.
Fate Reforged is widely cited as having some of the most overpowered rares in draft in a long time, and Citadel Siege is among the most powerful cards in that set. Having your card be comparable to a clearly overpowered card is not good, even if your card is somewhat more conditional. Additionally, I think you're underestimating how strong the Desert clause is on this card. Shrinking a creature and gaining a life per turn in addition to tapping that creature is a huge upside.
How often do you see common biblical tropes in Magic nowadays? Flavor text written in a biblical style is equally absent too. I'm not saying that the flavor text is poorly written — it isn't, but it is out of place in this card game. The reference would be obscure for many players, and that your judge is also confused by it should not be surprising.
Your last point about my flavor text makes no sense. You don't need to have read one word of the Bible for the flavor to make perfect sense in the world of Amonkhet. Nicol Bolas destroyed the barrier of the Hekma, and the citizens of Amonkhet now have to brave the deserts. Now they get to experience the brutality of the second sun. Flavor text on rares is often used to highlight key aspects of the story. My card's flavor text does that beautifully.
There are also a lot of Biblical allusions in this set. The emphasis on Locusts and the art on many of the invocations (Capsize, Boil, Opposition, Pact of Negation) to name a few. But, like I said, the card stands on its own within the story and lore of Amonkhet itself.
That said, arguing about how perfect or not your flavor feels is very subjective. If your judge felt it didn't make a whole a lot of sense and the word choices felt off, arguing that his or her feelings on the matter are wrong don't really go anywhere.
Looking at your card myself, I personally get the flavor of your card, though I don't think the flavor text is very "magic-friendly." The word choices are a bit unclear and written in a way I'd expect for a more adult level novel, which is not typical for magic cards.
So I am totally cool with my card not making it through to Round 3, but I did want to ask some questions in order to understand how the MCC actually operates/what expectation I should have of my judges with regards to flavor as well.
1. What is the level of expectation regarding mid-contest changes to the rules? To be honest, I am not on the forum all that often - since I had a ton of obligations this week. (It was doubly disappointing to not advance in the CCL because of a single missed critique) By every metric originally, my card met the original challenge and it wasn't until today that I found out that a new clarification was added that turned my card into a "bend" for what judges would be looking for - if not outright potentially disqualify me. In cases like this and in the CCL, I ask that judges please kindly send a PM to all participants regarding rules changes (even if not those who explicitly did not meet the challenge). This way if I just have time to check the front page, I can see that someone needed me and respond.
2. With regards to flavor, I received this critique:
Either way- what's done is done, and I'll be back next month, but I hope that some clarity can be offered/policies can be adjusted in the future to help players like myself who are just joining.
If you would ever like any of your cards that I have judged to be individually reviewed, feel free to message me privately. I am human; I make errors. I know that I have been aloof on these forums in the past, but I truly do want to do right by the Custom Magic community (not just MTGSalvation, mind). In particular, I have seen your work and believe that you definitely know what you are doing when it comes to design. I had no ill will when I made my judgments last week (at least, I do not believe that I did, and I hope that can be believed to be the case).
I will even explain the layers problem that I mentioned, should you like. I only warn that it might end up to be a complex read.
This month's host, bravelion83, indeed clarified the rules of the main challenge after many of this week's submissions had been made. However, in his defense, I do not believe that he ever changed the rules of the main challenge.
As a public service announcement to everyone: It should be every contestant's responsibility to read and understand the clarifications that come with most MCC weeks, especially when the host explicitly calls for it. Plus, anyone should feel free ask a host (either by a public post in this thread or by a private message) for further clarification should one be unsure of anything.
To SubSilentio,
I sincerely apologize for my mistake with no excuses and no justifications. I can only agree with you now, publicly, that you are right and I was wrong.
It was irresponsible of me as a judge to not find time and seek my own clarification and not merely assume based off of repeated past experiences of new users posting silly flavor text attributed to important and canonical characters. I am at fault here for this, and I appreciate the humility.
The only logical consolation that I can offer is as follows: even if I were to elevate your score in the flavor criterion by one and a half points, the maximum that I can reasonably add, you would still be half a point short of a second place tie. Nowhere else in my judgment upon thorough reviewing do I find any other place were I could add points with this insight (except I would need to post my new final thoughts on your card in the aftermath). I can make this edit to my post if you would like, even if it cannot change the outcome of the bracket.
But, I sincerely thank you for bringing this to my attention. Firstly, I hope that you do not feel ill will towards me as a result of my display of negligent hubris; secondly, I hope that I can become a better judge as a result of this in the aftermath with thanks to you.
Admittedly, should you indeed return to participate and compete in future months, I further hope that you would not dread my judgments towards your future cards. Again, I can only apologize with the utmost sincerity that I can realistically communicate over the internet.
If you (or anyone) possesses any concerns with my judgments, additional or otherwise, please do not hesitate to let me know. I will do my best to be more receptive to criticism in the future, as that is a responsibility of mine to be a better MCC judge for the future months to come.
First and foremost I wanted to thank you for your reply and to publicly acknowledge that I appreciate the amount of work you and the other judges put into the contest. It is a ton of work and for you to take the time out of your day to not only judge thoroughly but also to respond means the world.
Since nesting quotes is super difficult for me on this forum, I’ll just respond very briefly to the two main topic areas.
Regarding the initial contest, because the clarification was not out at the time, I (and apparently a number of other contestants) took the challenge to mean that so long as your card had an ability that puts -1/-1 counters on an opponent’s creature(s), that you were in good shape. This could not logically be something that puts -1/-1s on all creatures, as I get how that would not be following the exact pattern since you are never targeting an opponent’s creature. That said, there is no reason to assume that the card cannot be “challenge plus a cookie” (e.g. If the challenge was “make a creature that grants a creature you control double strike,” logically it seems to follow that a card that says “Give target creature your opponent controls and target creature you control double strike until end of turn” does logically follow the “A+B being inclusive of A” so it seems like it would meet the parameters cleanly. For a change that adjusts the entire scope of the challenge to be “Do X but not Y” I think that something like that should at least be messaged to contestants who submitted early on but who may not have known about the adjustment.
Regarding the flavor, I truly hold no ill will towards you or your judging either now or in the future – puns are always a substantial risk and I understand they can be used as a crutch by new players for lazy writing. Hell they are used by lazy writers in tv shows too, so I totally get the gut react cringe. (It made me cringe writing it to be honest.) As a player whose goal first and foremost is flavor, I’d love to know what you think of the flavor if you have time in retrospect, but only insofar as any feedback from an established judge on the forum is super appreciated and good to have.
Don’t worry, I’ll definitely be back in other competitions and I’m excited to grow as a competitor as well as a judge (if I have a good month, I’m happy to give up some time for this).
EDIT: here it is.
(I'll make no quotes to avoid this being too long.)
About the rest, first I want to point out that I did not change the challenge in any way while it was underway. Not a single word in the main challenge has changed since I first posted the round thread. I always intended the challenge to be like that. What happened is that the following day, checking on the thread as I always try to do at least once a day when I host (not every day I am able to but the vast majority of days I do), I realized that a lot of people misinterpreted the challenge, so I posted an additional clarification post to, well, clarify the exact intent of the challenge. Maybe the challenge wasn't clear enough in the beginning, and if you find that's the case I apologize, but I can tell you one thing: it's not by chance that I chose to ask for a specific wording in the main challenge rather than a generic "Design a card that can put -1/-1 counters on opposing creatures". I thought spelling out a mandatory template for everyone to follow was the cleanest way to avoid misinterpretation. I figured out telling people exactly how the card had to read was the best way to ensure the intent of the challenge was respected. It turns out I was wrong in that assumption and needed to further clarify that intent. I also apologize if I wasn't clear enough that was just a further clarification and not a change of the main challenge. In fact, again, not a single word in the OP changed. I now wish I thought about taking a screenshot of the challenge as I posted it, but unfortunately I didn't, so everyone will have to trust my word on that. I will do it right now for round 3, should that need arise (hopefully not).
TLDR: I saw people misinterpreted the challenge and I had to either clarify or DQ a bunch of people. I chose the former. I think I made the right choice.
@ Sub_Silentio: I'm really sorry if you had a bad experience because of this, and please don't let this be the thing that drives you away. I definitely look forward to seeing more of your designs in the future! For what it means, I really liked how you did on your first try. I see a lot of potential in you as a custom card designer, potential that I would be sad to see gone for so little. I also encourage you to try judging if it's something you feel you want to do. And don't think it's too early: I myself judged on just the third month I was an active member of this community (don't let my join date fool you, while I signed up in 2010 I wasn't an active poster until 2014). I'd also definitely help you should you need it, as I've already done with several judges on their first experience.
---
EDIT 2: random things as I go back to read again the last posts.
About sending out a PM to the specific players involved: I'll be honest, I just didn't think of it. If I had, I would have totally done it. My bad.
About Hapatra's flavor and love of puns: that's quite evident for one who reads the weekly story. I do, but nobody is forced to read it every week, or read it at all. That obviously includes judges. I feel Blydden has already clarified well enough, and even apologized about that, but I just felt I also had to point this out as the month's host.
I know I said no quotes, but I just had to quote this. That's 100% true, and many thanks to Blydden for writing this out. By the way, I can say that one person did write privately to me for clarification, even if I'm obviously not saying who that is.
About being more friendly to new players, I can assure everyone that's one of my highest priorities. I already always try to do that, but I am definitely open to hearing how I (and all the CCCG community really) can do it even better.
About the CCL: things pertaining to the CCL should be discussed in its own discussion thread, not here.
Finally, I would really like to avoid discussing real religion here, both because I don't feel it's appropriate on a forum about a game and because of other personal reasons I won't tell.
I think that's all for now. Again, I apologize for the length. Thanks to anyone who read this all.
MCC - Winner (6): Oct 2014, Apr Nov 2017, Jan 2018, Apr Jun 2019 || Host (15): Dec 2014, Apr Jul Aug Dec 2015, Mar Jul Aug Oct 2016, Feb Jul 2017, Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) || Judge (34): every month from Nov 2014 to Nov 2016 except Oct 2015, every month from Feb to Jul 2017 except Apr 2017, then Oct 2017, May Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here)
CCL - Winner (3): Jul 2016 (tied with Flatline), May 2017, Jul 2019 (last one here) || Host (5): Feb 2015, Mar Apr May Jun 2016
DCC - Winner (1): Mar 2015 (tied with Piar) || Host (3): May Oct 2015, Jan 2016
• The two public custom sets I've been part a part of the design team for:
"Brotherhood of Ormos" - Blog post with all info - set thread - design skeleton / card list || "Extinctia: Homo Evanuit" - Blog post with all info - set thread - card list spreadsheet
• "The Lion's Lair", my article series about MTG and custom card design in particular. Latest article here. Here is the article index. Rather outdated by now, and based on the old MCC rubric, but I'm leaving this here for anybody that might be interested anyway.
• My only public attempt at being a writer: the story of my Leonin custom planeswalker Jeff Lionheart. (I have a very big one that I'm working on right now but that's private for now, and I don't know if I will ever actually publish it, and I also have ideas for multiple future ones, including one where I'm going to reprise Jeff.)
Regarding your challenge here, I believe you that the challenge itself did not change, but I do think there is a categorical difference between the two challenges (pre/post clarification). Consider the example here:
Challenge 1
Design a card that puts -1/-1 counters on your opponent's creatures.
Technically within this are all these permutations:
By the letter of the law then, these were all viable as opposed to the challenge mentioning the word "exclusively" in clarification which then turns the challenge into only allowing
Challenge 2
Design a card that puts -1/-1 counters on exclusively your opponent's creatures.
A person, then who designed to focus on either of the other two permutations mentioned in the first list is now put in a position where their card is no longer compliant with the parameters of the contest. It seems to me that the scope changed on it pretty dramatically, especially given how many people you mentioned were not designing according to what you'd intended.
It's also a really (on a side note) difficult challenge to make a green card here - which was one of the primary colors of -1/-1 counters in AKH/HOD, but their design was for undercosted creatures with big butts that have to place -1/-1 counters on your own creatures, which is what inspired my design.
Regardless, I think you are doing an excellent job running the event and it was never intended to be a referendum on you or your ability to host - I've had a ton of fun so far. I was merely asking that hosts in the future consider (they don't even *have* to, just think about) the relative merits of helping players whose designs you see are not meeting the goals of the round to avoid confusion when a new clarification is added. (If someone designs like an Instant when the challenge is for a Sorcery, that's a whole other story)
About green cards being difficult, challenges are kind of supposed to be hard, especially subchallenges that are optional. As a host, you want the players being uncertain whether to go for the hard thing and potentially get extra points out of it, or make the easier thing but giving up a point, which sometimes actually gives you a higher chance of advancing. There's no point in just giving out points for free! (this pun was intended instead
I hope that's the beginning of a long stay here for you, and most of all I'm very glad to hear you had fun anyway. That's the main thing.
MCC - Winner (6): Oct 2014, Apr Nov 2017, Jan 2018, Apr Jun 2019 || Host (15): Dec 2014, Apr Jul Aug Dec 2015, Mar Jul Aug Oct 2016, Feb Jul 2017, Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) || Judge (34): every month from Nov 2014 to Nov 2016 except Oct 2015, every month from Feb to Jul 2017 except Apr 2017, then Oct 2017, May Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here)
CCL - Winner (3): Jul 2016 (tied with Flatline), May 2017, Jul 2019 (last one here) || Host (5): Feb 2015, Mar Apr May Jun 2016
DCC - Winner (1): Mar 2015 (tied with Piar) || Host (3): May Oct 2015, Jan 2016
• The two public custom sets I've been part a part of the design team for:
"Brotherhood of Ormos" - Blog post with all info - set thread - design skeleton / card list || "Extinctia: Homo Evanuit" - Blog post with all info - set thread - card list spreadsheet
• "The Lion's Lair", my article series about MTG and custom card design in particular. Latest article here. Here is the article index. Rather outdated by now, and based on the old MCC rubric, but I'm leaving this here for anybody that might be interested anyway.
• My only public attempt at being a writer: the story of my Leonin custom planeswalker Jeff Lionheart. (I have a very big one that I'm working on right now but that's private for now, and I don't know if I will ever actually publish it, and I also have ideas for multiple future ones, including one where I'm going to reprise Jeff.)
I'm gonna second this one. The contestants deserve a resolution, especially after a round with awesome entries.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
I'll message you privately, Blyyden. No ill will, but I'll share some thoughts.
I didn't want to be the first one to say this, but yes. The problem dates at least back to last November, when admirableadmiral and I had to take over the contest after one round because Necarg disappeared with no explanation.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
Then I propose Necarg be banned from organizing and judging the MCC for a year. Considering in the past year he has failed to follow through as organizer twice and under the new infraction guidelines he would of been penalized at least seven times between the two months(which would result in a permanent ban from participating in any way), I think this is reasonably fair.
I always say real life always comes first, and I repeat that here, but I find it hard to believe that you can't even find just one minute in the whole day to post that you will not able to respect the deadline, even without explaining why. Nobody forces you to write about your personal life on a public forum, but I feel that at least a notice that you won't be able to make it should be due, and this is true for everyone: host, judges, players.
MCC - Winner (6): Oct 2014, Apr Nov 2017, Jan 2018, Apr Jun 2019 || Host (15): Dec 2014, Apr Jul Aug Dec 2015, Mar Jul Aug Oct 2016, Feb Jul 2017, Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) || Judge (34): every month from Nov 2014 to Nov 2016 except Oct 2015, every month from Feb to Jul 2017 except Apr 2017, then Oct 2017, May Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here)
CCL - Winner (3): Jul 2016 (tied with Flatline), May 2017, Jul 2019 (last one here) || Host (5): Feb 2015, Mar Apr May Jun 2016
DCC - Winner (1): Mar 2015 (tied with Piar) || Host (3): May Oct 2015, Jan 2016
• The two public custom sets I've been part a part of the design team for:
"Brotherhood of Ormos" - Blog post with all info - set thread - design skeleton / card list || "Extinctia: Homo Evanuit" - Blog post with all info - set thread - card list spreadsheet
• "The Lion's Lair", my article series about MTG and custom card design in particular. Latest article here. Here is the article index. Rather outdated by now, and based on the old MCC rubric, but I'm leaving this here for anybody that might be interested anyway.
• My only public attempt at being a writer: the story of my Leonin custom planeswalker Jeff Lionheart. (I have a very big one that I'm working on right now but that's private for now, and I don't know if I will ever actually publish it, and I also have ideas for multiple future ones, including one where I'm going to reprise Jeff.)
Which is why the current infraction rules are more lenient if not completely forgiving if you actual communicate delays. Necrag has not done so several times this month and the past November, and has outright abandoned his job multiple. Hence my suggested one year ban period as a judge and organizer. He can still play of course, though going forward the new infraction rules would apply to him.