Yes, that was only in the case that no one else posted and we only had five submissions total. That won't certainly be the case, as two people posted and we're only missing one submission, PsyOp's one. He hasn't been active for 16 hours, that means he hasn't seen my pms yet, so I'll wait some more hours to see if he gets online, sees my pms (or this post) and posts a card. Hopefully he will, and everything will be back to normal. If he won't the third of my listed cases will apply. The first two can't apply anymore (and your quoted sentence was from one of these), so don't worry!
EDIT: And everything is back to normal! Brackets have been posted in the round thread.
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 Here is the article index.Rather outdated by now, and based on the old MCC rubric, but I'm leaving this here for anybody that might be interested anyway.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.)
- It's very strange to me to judge deck archetypes together with psychographics. Also, deck archetypes are more of a development concept than a design one. I'd suggest moving the last question in Appeal to either Viability or Balance.
I don't have a strong opinion on the matter, so either seems fine.
- Elegance definitely needs to keep into account mechanics too (see Vertain's card). I'd change the first question to "Is the card easily understandable at a glance?", to include every part of the card. The word "concepts" suggests a higher importance given to flavor. I don't feel like mechanics are currently included here, though it may just be me misunderstanding.
I do think concept's encompass mechanics, but if other agree that your wording is better, it makes little difference to me.
- I find very hard to judge "fun" in Balance. Fun is such a subjective concept that it's very hard to judge, especially without playtest. I'd suggest a more thorough discussion on whether it's really worth to include that last question in Balance in the rubric. Maybe we could change it to "Does this card feel oppressive?" or "How does this card feel on the other side of the table?".
I think your interpretation goes after what I meant in judging fun objectively. Cards that do things we know are opressive (Repeatable isntant speed discard, mass LD, etc) should send up red flags and be addressed in the rubric somehow.
- Very very good to be able to judge how well the card fits the main challenge. I've been able to keep into account all the cards that present a new race but don't feel menacing at all. That's very useful in not-objective challenges, such as the ones based on flavor. Now I'm definitely a supporter of adding such a section to the rubric, no more doubts about that.
I've got a believer! Sweet :). You can see why I was a bit frustrated in not beign able to penalize that aspect more in a number of my challenges and in judging elsewhere.
I'd be interested in someone else trying IcariiFA's rubric too and giving his or her own feedback. I'd be also interested in hearing what you all think about what I wrote in my notes.
I think it'd be great to have more people give it a whirl ASAP. I know there has been talk about creating a group of cards/criteria to try it our more officially.
I don't have a strong opinion on the matter, so either seems fine.
Thinking about it some more, now I think that Balance would be more appropriate than Viability for that question. I totally confirm everything else I wrote.
Anything else you want to try, I'm here!
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.)
Thanks to all the judges, I'll wait six more hours until the official judging deadline and then I'll post the final round either then or at last tomorrow.
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.)
Ah well. If I'm honest, I knew the triple-hybrid cost was a bad idea, but I was so pleased with how damn clever it was - it set up the cost so it could be played in any two Jeskai colours, but was easiest by some margin to cast in all three, and the abilities were carefully chosen to match the colours. But yeah, I almost certainly should have gone with simple over clever. Congratulations to those going on to the finals.
Final scores for round 3 are here.
The final round has been posted and it's here.
Good luck everyone!
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 know I ruled differently in round 2, but this time making a DFC goes completely against the spirit of the challenge, which is to force you to make a card with four colors of mana in the mana cost. That's the intended difficulty of this challenge, and DFCs allow all sort of tricks to avoid it. So, for this round I'm ruling that DFCs are NOT allowed, unless the front face (the one you have to pay the mana cost to cast) is four-colored. I'm going to edit the OP accordingly right now. Sorry, but this time it would just be too easy. I apologize for forgetting about DFCs again while creating this round.
While I'm not against this ruling, in the future you should have consistency between rounds. I've noticed that you've given a slightly different ruling on this issue every round now, and while I can always come up with another idea, it's preferable that whatever the main challenge says and explicitly implies should be what goes.
While I'm not against this ruling, in the future you should have consistency between rounds. I've noticed that you've given a slightly different ruling on this issue every round now, and while I can always come up with another idea, it's preferable that whatever the main challenge says and explicitly implies should be what goes.
I agree 100% and I apologize again. I can't do anything more than that now. I just planned everything before the start of the month and I completely forgot about DFCs. They have been a curse on me this month, that's for sure. And as for giving different judgings in different rounds, you don't know how much I wished I could avoid that, and I acknowledged that right in the first sentence of my post in the round thread before I said anything else. I don't think I could have done anything more.
What the main challenge implied was that you had to make a card with all the different colors of mana in the mana cost or at most in the color indicator. That's what was in my mind for all rounds, in fact I specified that color identity doesn't count. Then DFCs came up and the troubles started for me. With complete hindsight maybe it would have been better to just never allow DFCs in the first place in round 2. Now I definitely regret not having done that, but it's too late. If I knew back in round 2 that this would have happened I would have totally behaved in a different way back then. The fact is that in round 2 DFCs weren't that much of a problem, but now it's just too easy to use them to get around the intended difficulty of the challenge. I apologize again. I like DFCs and I played with them, but if they had never existed it would have been better for me right now, so in this moment I understand those who hate them.
I'm already planning another month of challenges for the period when Magic Origins comes out (and in fact I'll say from now that I'd like to host either July or August, when Origins will be the current set, as that plan makes little to no sense otherwise), and there I've already written in all main challenges about both DFCs and color identity. It looks like every month I host teaches me something: December taught me about the latter, and April about the former. If people didn't try to continously find unorthodox ways to get around the intended difficulty they're supposed to face in the challenges, it would be much easier. But I guess that's just the nature of custom card design, at least for somebody among us, to push the limits of card design in unexpected ways. Well, it's just the player's role vs the host's role: the former tries in every way to crack the game the latter set for them. It definitely reminds me of when MaRo talks about games being challenges for the players (all of you in this case) to solve and game designers (me as the designer of the challenges in this case) having to not make it too easy for the player. I guess now I know how R&D feels when they see a card they thought was right and later have to ban it because it's too overpowered (JTMS and such come to mind). Hint: it's not a pleasant feeling. But I digress...
I hope you can accept my most sincere apologies.
@everyone: when in doubt about whether something is allowed of not, please just ask the host before the deadline. Maybe you thought of something they didn't, and no one's to blame for that. It just happens. We as human beings aren't perfect and sometimes we just forget or don't think about things. Thanks for your understanding.
EDIT: I think this is even further evidence that a section about the main challenge is needed in the rubric. If it were already there, I could just have accepted the card (keeping rulings consistent) and given you a low score there (not zero) to keep into account that you kind of bypassed the challenge using a loophole. Just a thought.
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.)
EDIT: I think this is even further evidence that a section about the main challenge is needed in the rubric. If it were already there, I could just have accepted the card (keeping rulings consistent) and given you a low score there (not zero) to keep into account that you kind of bypassed the challenge using a loophole. Just a thought.
That was my thought when I saw that exchange too. Does anyone else have thoughts to weigh in on the proposed MCC rubrics? I'd like this to move forward.
P.S. As of yesterday I'm done moving, so hurray! My spare time has increased.
EDIT: I think this is even further evidence that a section about the main challenge is needed in the rubric. If it were already there, I could just have accepted the card (keeping rulings consistent) and given you a low score there (not zero) to keep into account that you kind of bypassed the challenge using a loophole. Just a thought.
That was my thought when I saw that exchange too. Does anyone else have thoughts to weigh in on the proposed MCC rubrics? I'd like this to move forward.
P.S. As of yesterday I'm done moving, so hurray! My spare time has increased.
I should probably respond to your comments to my edits to the rubric.
Your modified version doesn't add up. Literally. If you nix the main challenge section without distributing the points, you have a total of 23, not 25.
The way you shifted points to make some sections dramatically more important then others looks arbitrary.
I'm willing to forgo this change. If we had more time before next month I'd want to debate the balancing of the sections, but for now making them all worth three points is fine.
The last thing I haven't addressed is your new wording for balance. I think it's a terrible idea to use the term "intended format." I for one am not going to try and guess what format a player designed a card for, and then leave room for them to come back and tell me that they intended something else and my judging is "wrong." It makes much more sense to assume we are design cards today, in the present, and that they should fit into what wizards would put on a contemporary card. Seeing that for every card wizards designs for eternal formats they do nearly 1000 for standard, I think it makes more sense to universally assume our judging criteria should start there unless otherwise stated as part of the challenge. That also helps reduce the subjectivity in judging the category as opposed to every judge assuming what format a card was designed for.
And this is the crux of the matter. Wizards creates new cards in the commander products every year, such as Flusterstorm and True-Name Nemesis. While the former would not be overly powerful in standard (just a very good counterspell against other spell-heavy decks), the latter would be obscenely powerful if it ever were to touch standard. I agree that context is highly relevant to each and every card. Perhaps the context of the cards you're designing should be included in the main challenge. If I knew that I was making a card for a core set, I'd dial back on complex keywords and power level, and if I knew that I was making a card for the next commander precon deck, I'd make a card that maybe pushed a few boundaries so it would see legacy play and/or made sure it was a multiplayer card.
Or we could just standard expectations to be standard, and leave it up to challenge creators to change the judge criteria based on there needs for a given challenge. Regardless some kind of standardization/expectation for balance needs to be set as it is almost never judged the same between judges and that's a problem.
Also admirableadmiral I haven't seen a Judge sign up thread for May... why is that?
Or we could just standard expectations to be standard, and leave it up to challenge creators to change the judge criteria based on there needs for a given challenge. Regardless some kind of standardization/expectation for balance needs to be set as it is almost never judged the same between judges and that's a problem.
Also admirableadmiral I haven't seen a Judge sign up thread for May... why is that?
Oh shoot, I completely forgot to put that up. Whoops. Putting that (and May round 1) up shortly.
I just noticed we are using a new rubric this month... but not one that there was mutual agreement on. The 5 points dedicated to quality? You're just lazily balancing it out to 25 after your miscalculation when nixing the main challenge category, which you were the only one to disagree with.
I started the initiative to change/update the rubric with the intent there would be some kind of community consensus, not that someone would run off and start a trend of their own personal rubrics.
I expected to see a section about the main challenge in there, but that's not a problem. Further discussion on that is probably needed, even if I'm now firmly in the pro camp.
As for what IcariiFA said in the last post right above this one, I'm personally open to everything: trying admirableadmiral's proposed rubric, trying IcariiFA's rubric, going on with the old rubric while we're trying to reach an agreement here (probably the wisest thing to do), anything. What matters to me are two things: that the discussion going on here about the rubric keeps on going on, and that the rubric doesn't change in the middle of the month, because I definitely think that would create quite a lot of confusion.
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.)
Increasing Influence
Sorcery (R)
Gain control of target creature until end of turn. Untap that creature. It gains haste until end of turn. If Increasing Influence was cast from a graveyard, gain control of target creature indefinitely instead. (The creature doesn't gain haste or untap.)
Flashback (You may cast this card from your graveyard for its flashback cost. Then exile it.)
Aggressive RecruitmentxRR
Sorcery (R)
As an additional cost to cast Aggressive Recruitment, sacrifice X Creatures.
Gain control of X target creatures until end of turn. Untap those creatures. Those creatures gain haste until end of turn.
It would not. Your card must create two creatures; you can't steal them from the battlefield.
Thanks for the heads up Legend! I didn't see that. I'll have to rethink this. So I can steal two creatures from a graveyard, but not the battlefield?
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)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yes, that was only in the case that no one else posted and we only had five submissions total. That won't certainly be the case, as two people posted and we're only missing one submission, PsyOp's one. He hasn't been active for 16 hours, that means he hasn't seen my pms yet, so I'll wait some more hours to see if he gets online, sees my pms (or this post) and posts a card. Hopefully he will, and everything will be back to normal. If he won't the third of my listed cases will apply. The first two can't apply anymore (and your quoted sentence was from one of these), so don't worry!
EDIT: And everything is back to normal! Brackets have been posted in the round thread.
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 don't have a strong opinion on the matter, so either seems fine.
I do think concept's encompass mechanics, but if other agree that your wording is better, it makes little difference to me.
I think your interpretation goes after what I meant in judging fun objectively. Cards that do things we know are opressive (Repeatable isntant speed discard, mass LD, etc) should send up red flags and be addressed in the rubric somehow.
I've got a believer! Sweet :). You can see why I was a bit frustrated in not beign able to penalize that aspect more in a number of my challenges and in judging elsewhere.
I think it'd be great to have more people give it a whirl ASAP. I know there has been talk about creating a group of cards/criteria to try it our more officially.
Thinking about it some more, now I think that Balance would be more appropriate than Viability for that question. I totally confirm everything else I wrote.
Anything else you want to try, I'm here!
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 pretty sure admirableadmiral called it a while ago.
EDIT:
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/creativity/custom-card-creation/custom-card-contests-and-games/603203-april-mcc-round-3-a-clan-reborn?comment=13
Judgings are done.
That I did.
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.)
The final round has been posted and it's here.
Good luck everyone!
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.)
While I'm not against this ruling, in the future you should have consistency between rounds. I've noticed that you've given a slightly different ruling on this issue every round now, and while I can always come up with another idea, it's preferable that whatever the main challenge says and explicitly implies should be what goes.
I agree 100% and I apologize again. I can't do anything more than that now. I just planned everything before the start of the month and I completely forgot about DFCs. They have been a curse on me this month, that's for sure. And as for giving different judgings in different rounds, you don't know how much I wished I could avoid that, and I acknowledged that right in the first sentence of my post in the round thread before I said anything else. I don't think I could have done anything more.
What the main challenge implied was that you had to make a card with all the different colors of mana in the mana cost or at most in the color indicator. That's what was in my mind for all rounds, in fact I specified that color identity doesn't count. Then DFCs came up and the troubles started for me. With complete hindsight maybe it would have been better to just never allow DFCs in the first place in round 2. Now I definitely regret not having done that, but it's too late. If I knew back in round 2 that this would have happened I would have totally behaved in a different way back then. The fact is that in round 2 DFCs weren't that much of a problem, but now it's just too easy to use them to get around the intended difficulty of the challenge. I apologize again. I like DFCs and I played with them, but if they had never existed it would have been better for me right now, so in this moment I understand those who hate them.
I'm already planning another month of challenges for the period when Magic Origins comes out (and in fact I'll say from now that I'd like to host either July or August, when Origins will be the current set, as that plan makes little to no sense otherwise), and there I've already written in all main challenges about both DFCs and color identity. It looks like every month I host teaches me something: December taught me about the latter, and April about the former. If people didn't try to continously find unorthodox ways to get around the intended difficulty they're supposed to face in the challenges, it would be much easier. But I guess that's just the nature of custom card design, at least for somebody among us, to push the limits of card design in unexpected ways. Well, it's just the player's role vs the host's role: the former tries in every way to crack the game the latter set for them. It definitely reminds me of when MaRo talks about games being challenges for the players (all of you in this case) to solve and game designers (me as the designer of the challenges in this case) having to not make it too easy for the player. I guess now I know how R&D feels when they see a card they thought was right and later have to ban it because it's too overpowered (JTMS and such come to mind). Hint: it's not a pleasant feeling. But I digress...
I hope you can accept my most sincere apologies.
@everyone: when in doubt about whether something is allowed of not, please just ask the host before the deadline. Maybe you thought of something they didn't, and no one's to blame for that. It just happens. We as human beings aren't perfect and sometimes we just forget or don't think about things. Thanks for your understanding.
EDIT: I think this is even further evidence that a section about the main challenge is needed in the rubric. If it were already there, I could just have accepted the card (keeping rulings consistent) and given you a low score there (not zero) to keep into account that you kind of bypassed the challenge using a loophole. Just a thought.
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.)
That was my thought when I saw that exchange too. Does anyone else have thoughts to weigh in on the proposed MCC rubrics? I'd like this to move forward.
P.S. As of yesterday I'm done moving, so hurray! My spare time has increased.
I should probably respond to your comments to my edits to the rubric.
I'm willing to forgo this change. If we had more time before next month I'd want to debate the balancing of the sections, but for now making them all worth three points is fine.
And this is the crux of the matter. Wizards creates new cards in the commander products every year, such as Flusterstorm and True-Name Nemesis. While the former would not be overly powerful in standard (just a very good counterspell against other spell-heavy decks), the latter would be obscenely powerful if it ever were to touch standard. I agree that context is highly relevant to each and every card. Perhaps the context of the cards you're designing should be included in the main challenge. If I knew that I was making a card for a core set, I'd dial back on complex keywords and power level, and if I knew that I was making a card for the next commander precon deck, I'd make a card that maybe pushed a few boundaries so it would see legacy play and/or made sure it was a multiplayer card.
Also admirableadmiral I haven't seen a Judge sign up thread for May... why is that?
Oh shoot, I completely forgot to put that up. Whoops. Putting that (and May round 1) up shortly.
I started the initiative to change/update the rubric with the intent there would be some kind of community consensus, not that someone would run off and start a trend of their own personal rubrics.
As for what IcariiFA said in the last post right above this one, I'm personally open to everything: trying admirableadmiral's proposed rubric, trying IcariiFA's rubric, going on with the old rubric while we're trying to reach an agreement here (probably the wisest thing to do), anything. What matters to me are two things: that the discussion going on here about the rubric keeps on going on, and that the rubric doesn't change in the middle of the month, because I definitely think that would create quite a lot of confusion.
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.)
Yes.
I'm done.
fyi