Oh, I also finished my judgements yesterday. I think this challenge was a good example of one where it's a good idea to ditch one of the subchallenges. Making a common is hard and the one point isn't worth the potential loss of more than a point for viability, because you made an uncommon after all and uniqueness, because making interesting new commons is hard.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Multiple instances of lifelink on the same creature are redundant.
Multiple instances of lifelink on the same creature are redundant.
Multiple instances of lifelink on the same creature are redundant.
—Eli Shiffrin, Rules Manager, on a design stacking lifelink instances
I would argue that the MCC often tends to encourage "uniqueness" moreso than a card that would be placed in a set... as that is one of the categories. If we wanted to make a more realistic challenge, there should probably be a category that is something along the lines of "believability", or how likely would this card get put in a set.
(FWIW, I put mine to common because it was monocolor. There's precedent for monocolor charms being common, plus all those effects are worse than other versions of those effects at U. Also, I feel a monocolor charm is better for drafting at common, whereas multicolor charms need to be at least uncommon.)
(2/3) Appeal: (...) Spike isn't too interested at 3 mana. (1.5/3) Balance: So protecting creatures for their turn drop is probably not something I want to invest 3 mana in, especially when it's an incomplete protection. (...)
I'll be completely honest; I did not expect this. So, in any case, it was an interesting learning experience (whether I learned about card design, or about how to score in contests, or both, I cannot exactly tell... more on that below).
Out of the three psychographics, I do consider myself primarily a Spike, and I did play Standard while Return to Ravnica block was contemporary, and, to be honest, I felt like my card would have been overpowered at 2 mana. I kind of still do. Not just because you can drop it one turn earlier, but because that way it can be squeezed into your curve. (This is the main reason why I didn't cost it at 2. An aggro deck of that time could go turn 1 one drop, turn 2 two drop, turn 3 three drop, turn 4 two drop + this card if it costs 2. Because of how the card grants indestructible, it doesn't just protect freshly entered creatures, but also older creatures you have on board at the time, so what you can basically get on turn 4, if this enchantment costs 2 mana, is a board of 4 creatures that is immune to Supreme Verdict, before Supreme Verdict could've been played. And this is without even mentioning that this is the standard of Burning Tree Emissary nut draws.)
I am currently conflicted as to whether I should, in the future, cost my cards more aggressively, or change nothing in that regard. (no offense intended)
When I read ManyCookies review of your card, I felt he misread your entry.
I would argue that the MCC often tends to encourage "uniqueness" moreso than a card that would be placed in a set... as that is one of the categories. If we wanted to make a more realistic challenge, there should probably be a category that is something along the lines of "believability", or how likely would this card get put in a set.
Thing is, almost every other catogory already contributes to the idea of whether a card is printable or its "believability".
This is a design competition. Churning out generic cards that are good/safe but don't tread new ground should be reflected with a lower score than a card that is fresh feeling and unique while still being balanced. We shouldn't reward filler cards.
(On phone in Wyoming, will talk more later) I don't recall the T4 defensive Boros charm in INN/RTR being all that common or groan testy, and Id argue the burn mode on Boros Charm is way more relevant than the other uses/modes of your card. but it's been a while (almost 5 years! How time flies) so I fully admit I could be misremembering/suppressing. Plus Boris charm is multicolored and is a pretty high bar...hmm yeah the "it's not as good as Boris charms" standard might be a tad harsh looking back lol
IcariiFA, noted, but I think "safe" cards can be printed that aren't too pushed. (And for the most part, I think the competition does that.) B7t I am not very Spiky, so I am likely in the minority. To me, cards like Thragtusk and Siege Rhino are not good designs. I am sure others disagree.
To me, there is a difference between underwhelming filler chaff, and a well designed but still solid card. I know WotC has to push the envelope on some cards to sell sets, but sets have well designed cards that have lower power levels. I think people had trouble with the "common" subchallenge because commons are so infrequently "sexy" cards.
Tl;dr: Rare and up really lets an imagination go wild, but uncommon and below forces a designer to think about draft, ppwer level, etc.
IcariiFA, noted, but I think "safe" cards can be printed that aren't too pushed. (And for the most part, I think the competition does that.) B7t I am not very Spiky, so I am likely in the minority. To me, cards like Thragtusk and Siege Rhino are not good designs. I am sure others disagree.
To me, there is a difference between underwhelming filler chaff, and a well designed but still solid card. I know WotC has to push the envelope on some cards to sell sets, but sets have well designed cards that have lower power levels. I think people had trouble with the "common" subchallenge because commons are so infrequently "sexy" cards.
Tl;dr: Rare and up really lets an imagination go wild, but uncommon and below forces a designer to think about draft, ppwer level, etc.
Let me be more clear. In this context when I mentioned "safe" I was not in anyway refering to power level or how pushed a card is. I was referring to well known effects, PT:Cost ratios, or cards that closely mimic other already existing cards without notable twists. I meant creativity. That's why I was contrasting "safe" with uniqueness and not with power.
But seriously, in 2012, I would've been all over that card. Of course, I'd just started playing and I'd play anything with a Boros watermark, even if it was hot garbage.
I kind of feel like a lot of what people are making for these challenges are what we wish we'd had in hindsight. I mean, I gave my card 4 toughness, remembering a meta severely warped by Lightning Strike and Anger of the Gods. (People used to play Yoked Ox in constructed! Yoked Ox! It was madness!)
Can I get some possible clarification on "did not see widespread tournament play" in the Round 3 Challenge? For example, to my recollection, Entwine didn't see much tournament play, but Tooth and Nail was its own, very viable, tournament deck. Like I would hate to see people lose points on a relatively subjective clause of the main challenge.
Is there a readily accessible place I can go to that you are maybe aware of that let's me look at old metagames from years past?
Is it necessary for designed card to have chosen mechanic itself or just supporting is okay?
Looks like the former, the main challenge says "design a card with that mechanic" and the first subchallenge says "...with other cards that have your chosen mechanic" (which implies your card has the mechanic too).
For example, to my recollection, Entwine didn't see much tournament play, but Tooth and Nail was its own, very viable, tournament deck.
Rude Awakening also saw play, and I think Blinding beam was in some sideboards. But I agree "widespread tournament play" is pretty vague. Rather than mucking around with old Standard results finding how often Broken Ambitions was played (it's in the current flashback standard gauntlet), I suggest we make a conservative blacklist of the obvious non-entries and allow everything else. Or just be super lenient *shrug*.
So Rocco got hurricane'd and will be without power for a few days. We can delay, split his judgements amongst the three of us, let him skip the rubric and just give the final score (if he insists on judging over phone or something). Anything works for me
Hi! I'm bored as hell, and happy to have something to do to pass the time. Will score my brackets as thoroughly as I'm able momentarily. Thank you for being flexible.
Well, that'd be the LAST PLACE I would have looked. :B
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Multiple instances of lifelink on the same creature are redundant.
Multiple instances of lifelink on the same creature are redundant.
Multiple instances of lifelink on the same creature are redundant.
—Eli Shiffrin, Rules Manager, on a design stacking lifelink instances
Infiltrator was my templating check! You actually didn't lose points for it (I'd put it under Quality if you did), I was musing on how I'd make it more readable.
I'd definitely say that a lot of legitimate, actual Magic cards would receive low grades as far as MCC rubrics are concerned. And intentionally so (on the part of Wizz) since they're running with a set-by-set based approach to design rather than card-by-card. Which, for example, enables them to freely make cards that intentionally Appeal to only one psychographic.
Also, one thing I would say about the mtgsalvation card design community, from personal observations, is that we are weirdly enough more conservative when it comes to color pie adherence, color bleed, and what colorless artifacts/lands are allowed to pull off, than Wizards design is. I can think of several real cards (and I'm talking about post 2011 design, not weird stuff before the color pie was perfected) that would get Viability penalties from us if they were made as customs.
Can't agree more. To be honest, the same problem applies to most fan fiction-like creative activities based on something "canon". People will say you that you shouldn't break the rules, but bam! The next day original creator completely breaks them and calls it a day.
For example, I am pretty sure Ezuri's Predation won't pass MCC challenge while being straightforward green killing spell, but it exists.
Multiple instances of lifelink on the same creature are redundant.
Multiple instances of lifelink on the same creature are redundant.
—Eli Shiffrin, Rules Manager, on a design stacking lifelink instances
(FWIW, I put mine to common because it was monocolor. There's precedent for monocolor charms being common, plus all those effects are worse than other versions of those effects at U. Also, I feel a monocolor charm is better for drafting at common, whereas multicolor charms need to be at least uncommon.)
Club Flamingo Wins: 1!
Thing is, almost every other catogory already contributes to the idea of whether a card is printable or its "believability".
This is a design competition. Churning out generic cards that are good/safe but don't tread new ground should be reflected with a lower score than a card that is fresh feeling and unique while still being balanced. We shouldn't reward filler cards.
I'll give the tiebreaker to ya
To me, there is a difference between underwhelming filler chaff, and a well designed but still solid card. I know WotC has to push the envelope on some cards to sell sets, but sets have well designed cards that have lower power levels. I think people had trouble with the "common" subchallenge because commons are so infrequently "sexy" cards.
Tl;dr: Rare and up really lets an imagination go wild, but uncommon and below forces a designer to think about draft, ppwer level, etc.
Club Flamingo Wins: 1!
But seriously, in 2012, I would've been all over that card. Of course, I'd just started playing and I'd play anything with a Boros watermark, even if it was hot garbage.
I kind of feel like a lot of what people are making for these challenges are what we wish we'd had in hindsight. I mean, I gave my card 4 toughness, remembering a meta severely warped by Lightning Strike and Anger of the Gods. (People used to play Yoked Ox in constructed! Yoked Ox! It was madness!)
EDIT: Did someone already offer to run September?
Is there a readily accessible place I can go to that you are maybe aware of that let's me look at old metagames from years past?
Looks like the former, the main challenge says "design a card with that mechanic" and the first subchallenge says "...with other cards that have your chosen mechanic" (which implies your card has the mechanic too).
Rude Awakening also saw play, and I think Blinding beam was in some sideboards. But I agree "widespread tournament play" is pretty vague. Rather than mucking around with old Standard results finding how often Broken Ambitions was played (it's in the current flashback standard gauntlet), I suggest we make a conservative blacklist of the obvious non-entries and allow everything else. Or just be super lenient *shrug*.
EDIT — You can now choose any mechanic for the main challenge. Hopefully this should fix all the problems.
Your card has to have your chosen mechanic.
Also apparently I forgot to hit "save" last night when I was posting the brackets. They should be up now. Apologies for the delay!
Multiple instances of lifelink on the same creature are redundant.
Multiple instances of lifelink on the same creature are redundant.
—Eli Shiffrin, Rules Manager, on a design stacking lifelink instances
Judging Sub_Silentio's card made me wonder how we'd grade Grim Flayer if this competition was a year and a half ago.
Can't agree more. To be honest, the same problem applies to most fan fiction-like creative activities based on something "canon". People will say you that you shouldn't break the rules, but bam! The next day original creator completely breaks them and calls it a day.
For example, I am pretty sure Ezuri's Predation won't pass MCC challenge while being straightforward green killing spell, but it exists.