MTG Salvation

Quote from Tilwin »

Quote from IcariiFA »

Regardless there is a distinct possibility that the God-Pharaoh card will be revealed before judging is over. That will influence how entries are examined in potential unfun ways. I think it's unwise and expressed that opinion. We will see how it plays out.

How will that influence judging in the first place? Which sections in our current rubric takes into consideration the Amonkhet environment, let alone a "real" version of a card? I really don't see how this could influence scoring.

Personally what I dislike about this round is the incredibly limited pool of cards we can expect. I am not a fan of converging all entries towards a highly similar and restricted creative space (such as we had in the past timeshifted version of two particular cards instead of any X cards - meeting a certain criterion).

While I wouldn't want to see such a restrictive challenge all the time, I think it's appropriate from time to time. It seems like this sort of challenge would be issued to professional card designers rather frequently. I'm no expert on how Wizards goes about designing a set, but there must be times when multiple designers are brainstorming ideas for the same card. Right?

Edit: Basically, there must be a time when the set lead tells the team "We need a card named X, that does something involving X."

Quote from kjsharp »

I guess Chaz and Saffron Olive and many other Magic content creators are arrogant too. They expressed the exact same opinion. In general people considered the interaction between the two cards a design and flavor failure.

I disagree with them and I'm not the only one even in their own post about dark intimations to disagree. A card that speeds up Nicol Bolas ult, gives him two turns of 7 damage to the face, and can fetch him back from the graveyard aren't bad synergies at all. I think people just wanted the loyalty ability to allow an instant ult or something else that guaranteed competitive play and got disappointed.

Please stop trying to go out of your way to insult and belittle me for no reason.

Two things: First, pot and kettle. Second, there are reasons I continue to call out your perspective. One of them being that you generalized that wizards has a track record failing cohesive designs for cards that reference each other, which I feel is overstated if not arrogant.

Quote from Tilwin »

How will that influence judging in the first place? Which sections in our current rubric takes into consideration the Amonkhet environment, let alone a "real" version of a card? I really don't see how this could influence scoring.

At the very minimum, if the card was revealed it would automatically affected the Creativity/Uniqueness category. But that is only the simple answer. Depending on how it is revealed, the accompanying article may illustrator further flavor concepts (what exactly is the card supposed to represent?) about the card and design/development trails (how was it balanced to work with its fetch card as well as other key interactions in the block?) that would affect a lot of the aspects in the rubric. Just knowing the cards abilities would set a standard of design that, depending when it is found out, could make players feel like the were tricked; designing something before hand that was revealed after the deadline but before judging. There is just the human factor of it all, how much would each judge divorced themselves from these things or not? What would the right line to draw be?

I do agree that everyone designing the same card concept does make things somewhat narrow. At least this is round 3 for less potential redundancy!

Again, for the love of God, stop trying to assassinate my character and the character of others in the MTG community. There are only two instances since Theros of these sorts of cards. Dark Intimations --> Nicol Bolas (which most people regarded as a design and flavor fail), and Renowned Weaponsmith--> Vial of Dragonfire. People were really let down by the latter one too. When you reference a card that hasn't yet been made/revealed, you really amp up the community's expectations of that card and the interaction of the known card with the unknown card. LSV and Marshall made jokes about it, and Saffron Olive and Richard from MTGGoldfish noted how Vial of Dragonfire really let down the MTG community's expectations. So what I said has merit, and indeed most people feel the same way as I do regarding these two pairs. So knock off the incessant impugning of my character and the character of others.

I just wrote this in the CCL discussion thread and I'll repeat it here too: I'd really appreciate if people just calmed down and remembered all this is just about a game, yes a game we love, but just a game. The important things in life you should feel strongly about are others.

I am a judge but I am also not a person who ignores spoilers (actually the contrary, but I digress...) so I won't go out of my way and not read God-Pharaoh's Gift if it's revealed before I make my judgments. Just to be clear, I will read it and the articles that might come with it. But I will also do my best to ignore such eventual knowledge while judging, that much I can promise.

I just think the timing of the challenge (due to the delay in round 1) was really unfortunate. If round 1 had gone according to plan, round 3 would have probably been already closed by now and the problem would not be there. Now there is nothing we can do about it. Let's just play/judge the round as normal and enjoy it like we (should?) do with every round of every contest.

Quote from Necarg »

Quote from Raptorchan »

My entry for the first round was Amonkhet card.

Nivix Splinterbrute 3UR
Creature - Weird Warrior (U)
Myriad (Whenever this creature attacks, for each opponent other than defending player, you may create a token that’s a copy of this creature that’s tapped and attacking that player or a planeswalker he or she controls. Exile the tokens at end of combat.)
At the beginning of each end step, if each opponent was dealt combat damage this turn, return Nivix Splinterbrute from your graveyard to your hand.
4/3

DESIGN
(2/3) Appeal: Jenny's and Spikes in EDH will care. Timmy probably won't.
(3/3) Elegance: Makes sense, easy to read. No qualms here.
DEVELOP
(1/3) Viability: This doesn't feel specifically blue or red, and feels more like Black and White.
(1/3) Balance: This is one mana overcosted. A larger monocolored creature with more upside exists at 5 mana (Banshee of the Dread Choir). This could easily be priced at 4 or 3, if you're trying to push it. But 5 is simply too much.
CREATE
(3/3) Uniqueness: Myriad-based recursion is new and interesting.
(1/3) Flavor: The only thing I get out of looking at this is that it's a big dude from the Izzet. The feel of the card just doesn't feel it though. It doesn't feel izzet, as much as it feels Golgari.
POLAND
(3/3) Quality: No issues here.
(3.5/4) Challenges: Main challenge and second sub are good, but I'm taking off a half point from Sub 1, because, inevitably, it will largely only care about its copies. However, it was still a neat take and could care about other attacking creatures.
TOTAL: 17.5/25

Just wondering.
1) How can it be black or white when Pyrewild Shaman is red?
2) How can it largely only care about its copies if you can deal damage with any creature?

Personally I thought it was more broken than unplayable because returning a creature from your graveyard to your hand to your hand each turn for free in 1v1 game is a nice option.

Quote from kjsharp »

So knock off the incessant impugning of my character and the character of others.

All I said was I disagreed with them. That's not impugning their character. No need to agrandize my words there.

As for your example, my mistake. I thought you were specifically talking about "cards that reference specific other cards" of which their are numerous examples. But as you were referring to "cards the refer to specific other cards to be revealed" you are not wrong, though I stand by people's reaction to dark imitations being overly dramatic. What was the card supposed to do? Id be interested to seeing how casual players responded to them as opposed to other designers opinions.

Very well said Tilwin. I support everything you are saying here.

I find what you write about in the third paragraph to be very interesting. I often see people unintentionally post designs that I've made in the past, and I'm sure I've posted things that others have thought of myself. It's inevitable if you're active in these forums long enough. Just the other day in the DCC, I voted for a card that I've seen several times, and had even made myself, but there is no reason to assume the person posting the card knew this, and he or she did a good job with their version. On the other hand, I had someone in the DCC state that my card was their favorite that day, but they had seen a similar design twice recently, and therefore he or she didn't want to vote for it. Both of these scenarios are fine. There are many factors that come into play when someone decides whether or not they like one card more than another, and each person has his or her own individual tastes and beliefs, which is fine. As a matter of fact, it's pretty much what keeps life interesting.

Quote from Tilwin »

So things are not so black and white and I guess if we want this system to work, we need to take everything with a tad of salt. Neither of us are "real" designers, nor do we know what's happening behind the scenes - even though at times I like to believe I do, a short cold shower brings me back to earth. So even if we may think we may know what we're doing, in the "real world" we have no freaking clue. Reminds me of the people who go to the doctor and already have a diagnosis, having Googled their symptoms.

As someone with a degree in Game Development, who does freelance game consulting, and is on a design team working on game projects I am a "real" designer. If you mean "not a WotC designer", then yes that's true of both of us.

I expressed an opinion on the challenge and when asked to elaborate, elaborated. We will just see how it turns out. I certainly could be wrong.

I don't think we should worry too much about it being spoiled. People should design this card however they like, regardless of it being spoiled. Comparing the cards that we design to the actual card is something that shouldn't be done during the competition...it is something that should be done afterwards, in an armchair with a glass of port or scotch and a cigar.
...preferably scotch

I think we'll all still have fun designing

Quote from kjsharp »

Comparing the cards that we design to the actual card is something that shouldn't be done during the competition...

Except that's explicitly what the MCC rubric asks you to do in several sections. Though I get what you're trying to say and that in this case it would be nice if judging would be at least consistent in how it is approached in this special (albeit entirely avoidable) circumstance.

My first draft was a legendary artifact angel that did this when it attacked. It even cost 7. I thought it was a silly idea, and didn't save it in MSE.

Quote from Rocco »

My first draft was a legendary artifact angel that did this when it attacked. It even cost 7. I thought it was a silly idea, and didn't save it in MSE.

Convergent design evolution. It happens.

Sorry for this, but has anyone volunteered for the July MCC?

I'm going to set up a thread as discussed to keep track of infractions. But before I do I wanted to clarify with the community if we rather do the level system In my initial draft, or the three strike per penalty system flatline propose? I'm fine with either so long as there is something.

Quote from Moss_Elemental »

Sorry for this, but has anyone volunteered for the July MCC?

If nobody has already done, I'm doing it right now.

Quote from IcariiFA »

I'm going to set up a thread as discussed to keep track of infractions. But before I do I wanted to clarify with the community if we rather do the level system In my initial draft, or the three strike per penalty system flatline propose? I'm fine with either so long as there is something.

I'm fine with doing it your way. I made my suggestion because it seemed like it would be easier for the person(s) keeping track of it, but if you intend to take the burden on yourself, it renders my attempt at making it easier somewhat pointless. Thanks for taking this on IcariiFA.

I'd also like to say, I hope people don't see this new "policing" system in a negative light. As long as a person is following through with what they've committed to do (which most people do), it shouldn't affect them in any way. I think that both of the systems proposed are lenient enough that only someone that is chronically shirking their responsibilities will end up being affected by it.

Tangentially related to the above, and something I noted earlier, is that I think it would be wise for the host to share judging assignments and future rounds' challenges with the judges a day or two in advance. That way, should something unexpected happen to the host, the competition could continue without a major hiccup or disruption. This simple protocol would have shaved off two days from this month's delays, and probably could have shaved off another day here at the end. Little protocols/checks/courtesies like this can really make a difference

Quote from bravelion83 »

Quote from Moss_Elemental »

Sorry for this, but has anyone volunteered for the July MCC?

If nobody has already done, I'm doing it right now.

Ok, seeing as tomorrow is already the first day of July and I have everything ready anyway, I'm just going to go ahead and start. I'll post the judge signup thread and round 1 in very short time.

Thanks, Leo. This month already looks fun!

Quote from void_nothing »

Thanks, Leo. This month already looks fun!

Thanks to you for the appreciation.

Both the Judge Signups thread and Round 1 are now posted.

Quote from bravelion83 »

Quote from bravelion83 »

Quote from Moss_Elemental »

Sorry for this, but has anyone volunteered for the July MCC?

If nobody has already done, I'm doing it right now.

Ok, seeing as tomorrow is already the first day of July and I have everything ready anyway, I'm just going to go ahead and start. I'll post the judge signup thread and round 1 in very short time.

Thanks, man.

Yeah, gonna have to be blunt. I really am annoyed after this challenge. Felt like I got trapped design wise since I didn't submit an entry till after the God-Pharaohs Gift was spoiled and didn't want to get penalized for being too close to it design wise, A standard that I felt wouldn't be universally applied (and frankly, couldn't be). So I wasn't too happy with my submission this month.

It's unfortunate because I don't think the challenge was a bad one per say, but the timing was obviously poor even before the card was spoiled. Oh well.

CCL focus time.

As both bravelion83 and StonerOfKruphix pointed out, my God-Pharaoh's Gift doesn't work as intended due to a boneheaded oversight on my part. The card should read as follows:

God-Pharaoh's Gift 2
Legendary Artifact (R)
T, Sacrifice a nonland permanent or discard a card: Tap or untap another target permanent.
3UBR, T, Exile up to six creature cards from your graveyard, sacrifice God Pharaoh’s Gift: Destroy up to X target nonland permanents, where X is the number of cards exiled with God-Pharaoh's Gift.
“Your faith will be rewarded. You needn't concern yourselves with any other so-called virtues.” — Nicol Bolas, God-Pharaoh

We're well, well past the judging deadline for June Round 3. The delays this month don't seem to be letting up.

Quote from Sub_Silentio »

I'm new, so I hope I did all the formatting correctly. This is my entry for now.

Welcome! Salve de multiverso