Are you looking for a maindeck card, IcariiFA, or is a sideboard card acceptable as well?
I'll make it more clear in my description of the fictitious standard, but this should be a card the makes midrange decks viable where before they would not be. If you feel that a sideboard card qualifies, youre more than welcome to design with that in mind. But Judges may or may not agree.
IcariiFA, is there a guide anywhere as to how one ought to order evergreen keywords? I'd hate to see people lose points on quality if the template isn't standardized. I'm sorry if this was already discussed/posted elsewhere, I just couldn't find anything via Google.
IcariiFA, is there a guide anywhere as to how one ought to order evergreen keywords? I'd hate to see people lose points on quality if the template isn't standardized. I'm sorry if this was already discussed/posted elsewhere, I just couldn't find anything via Google.
I'm not sure of anywhere official you can go for this, but I wrote up the thing below a few months ago, and I'm pretty sure it's accurate.
Thanks for the reply The_Hittite. The thread you are linking is the first time I've actually seen someone try to list all of the evergreen abilities in the correct order, which is actually quite surprising. I've attempted to update that list to modern times. There is no way that I know of to compile a list that is certain to be 100% accurate though, so this list is the best I could do....
Flash
Defender, flying, first strike, double strike, menace, vigilance, reach, deathtouch, trample, lifelink, hexproof, indestructible, haste, protection from <name>
?Prowess?
Here's a synopsis of how I arrived at the list I did....
- The cards Akroma, Angel of Wrath and Chromanticore give a good baseline to start with. They show us the following order: Flying, first strike, vigilance, trample, lifelink, haste, protection from <name>.
That leaves us with the following keywords to figure out: defender, prowess, double strike, menace, reach, deathtouch, hexproof, and indestructible. Here's how I placed each of them...
Defender - Fog Bank shows us defender comes before flying. Simple. Double strike - Kalemne, Disciple of Iroas shows us that double strike comes before vigilance. Drogskol Reaver shows us it comes after flying. It's not possible to say for sure which comes first, first strike or double strike, but I think it makes sense that first strike would come first. Menace - Kari Zev, Skyship Raider shows us that menace comes after first strike, and Dire Fleet Ravager shows us that it comes before deathtouch, so it could fall anywhere in between those two abilities. I think it would come before vigilance and reach because it has to do with how the creature can be blocked, which seems to be given a lot of weight if flying is taken as an example. I'm actually surprised it doesn't come between flying and first strike, like the ability (intimidate) it replaced did.I'm not sure the crossed out sentence is true. All that can be said for sure is, intimidate came somewhere between flying and trample, as can be seen on Withengar Unbound. Reach - Ramunap Hydra shows us reach comes after vigilance. Deadly Recluse shows us that it comes before deathtouch. I think Deadly Recluse can be trusted because both abilities have their reminder text. Deathtouch - Deadly Recluse shows that deathtouch comes after reach. Gifted Aetherborn shows us that it comes before lifelink. It is impossible to say whether deathtouch comes before or after trample, but I think deathtouch coming before trample would make more sense for a card that had both (which has never been printed). Hexproof - Ormendahl, Profane Prince shows us that indestructible comes after lifelink. Insidious Mist shows us that hexproof comes before indestructible. Indestructible - Insidious Mist shows us that indestructible comes after hexproof. Hazoret the Fervent shows us that it comes before haste. Prowess - This one is impossible to say because Wizards has yet to print a card with prowess that doesn't include the reminder text (as least not that I could find). I put it where I did because I felt like it. Which is why I list it separately from everything else.
I did this as quickly as I could, so please excuse an errors or omissions. I hope my reasoning for the list makes sense. If there is anything glaringly wrong with the list, or my reasoning behind it, please feel free to respond. It would be cool to make this list as accurate as possible.
Edit: I changed the list so that prowess was listed separately from everything else. I don't want to give anybody using the list for reference to get the wrong idea. I'm also unsure about my placement of menace, although I'm all but certain it comes between first strike and deathtouch. I'm pretty confidant about the rest of it.
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)
My entry's keyword soup led me to Chittering Host which throws a bit of a chink into this list. Haste seems to precede menace. Maybe they change it every once in a while when they introduce new evergreen keywords and remove others? It's really hard to know what exactly to do. It could be that different keywords are placed in a different order when grouped with different abilities?
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.
My entry's keyword soup led me to Chittering Host which throws a bit of a chink into this list. Haste seems to precede menace. Maybe they change it every once in a while when they introduce new evergreen keywords and remove others? It's really hard to know what exactly to do. It could be that different keywords are placed in a different order when grouped with different abilities?
The reason haste comes before menace on Chittering Host is because it has reminder text for menace, but not for haste. If a card has reminder text for an ability, the ability with the reminder text always comes last, and on a separate line. My list above only counts for a single line of abilities that have no reminder text. The problem with menace and prowess is that they are both still fairly new abilities, therefore they still tend to have their reminder text when used. Prowess has never been printed without its reminder text, which is why it is impossible to put in the list. Menace has been printed without its reminder text a few times already, which is why it can be put into the list with some certainty that it is in the correct spot. The combination of Dire Fleet Ravager and Queen Marchesa show us that menace would come before haste if both were printed on a card with neither having their reminder text. I'm pretty sure I explain this all above somewhere. It's been a little while since I wrote it, but I stand by what it says.
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)
Flatline, that was super helpful - thank you for that post! I guess my only remaining question is if we can come to a consensus prior to the deadline about if Prowess requires being on a separate line or if not, should judges be lenient about where it is positioned on cards whose designers chose to incorporate it? Again, given that this is a relatively easy faux pas to avoid, and all the designs so far look super tight, 0.5 points could be a really big difference between making it into the next round versus not.
Sorry again, just in the spirit of competition, I want to ensure everyone has as maximally equal of a chance as one another to avoid common mistakes.
Well, up until now prowess has always been on a separate line with reminder text, but at some point Wizards just has to print a card where prowess is included in a string of abilities with no reminder text. I'm of the mind that, since there is no precedent for where prowess would fall, it would be difficult to discount points for having it in the wrong place. Prowess is really the only ability like this though.
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 really like this design but I couldn't get it to fit the challenge. 3 key words was just too much, as concentrating the power there prevented me from making the power and toughness big enough to pull off the design. So I'll just share it here. I really like how this might open up room for fight spells weaker than Dromoka's Command to see play in Standard. Plus he's mighty cute...and giraffasaurs apparently were a real thing ("giraffatitans").
This past challenge was very interesting, and I'm not sure how possible it is to accomplish successfully. I think only mine and JimmyGroove's cards would be "Standard playable" as a midrange card from the bunch, his from the sideboard to combat aggro and mine in the maindeck, but both of us cut corners in other ways. The overarching difficulty of the challenge is that creatures with CMC 4 or greater need to either be (i) very difficult to kill or are recursive or (ii) generate card advantage the turn they are cast if they resolve. If they are neither of those things, the card rarely can find its way into the main of a standard deck.
When you staple 3 of that list's keywords to a card, you're taking up significant power real-estate, which makes it that much tougher to design the card for Standard and specifically for midrange. I'm pretty confident it is impossible to design a balanced "broadly flexible" Standard midrange card given that specific 3 keyword restriction. I suspect IcariiFA chose those 3 keywords to make the challenge as difficult as possible, though I'd like to hear from him about the design of the challenge itself. I think there was a lot of thought that went into the challenge's design. I've been waiting for the challenge to be over so I could hear from him about it!
I tried to thread the needle as best as I could. I ensured that Dashan would usually net you some advantage, although a treasure token on its own isn't enough of a generated advantage to merit Standard play in my opinion. I think it needed something more, so I designed it to where, if you went through the right deck-building hoops, Dashan would likely net you a very significant immediate advantage (that of becoming the Monarch) if you felt your board position was solid enough. My hope is that that potential pushes it over the hump of Standard playability (it's close and would require testing). I think this sort of design strategy (augmenting its power in a certain more-narrow context) is probably the only way to successfully complete the challenge. Or at least to complete the challenge minus the "can slot into any deck" part.
The fun part about Dashan, in my opinion, is the dance that would take place with this card on the battlefield between aggressive and midrange players. Against control this card is less interesting - you just want to flip it as soon as possible. But when the battlefield is cluttered and threats are bashing into each other, declaring yourself the Monarch is a strategic move, one that can backfire. Dashan definitely heightens the urgency of the game state and the strategic choices both players make.
I designed Dashan for the upcoming Core Set, so I had this current Standard, especially post-rotation Standard, in mind when designing him, his flavor, and choosing his abilities. I think it'd be cool to have a cycle of 5 creatures that, when transformed, make you the Monarch (similar to Magic Origins's 5 creatures that transformed into planeswalkers).
Anywho, that was some of my thought process to designing the card. I enjoyed this challenge a lot. It was a great challenge in part because of its infeasability. The only thing I found myself not liking about the challenge is how it precluded you from designing cards from several colors. I think Icarii deserves a lot of credit and applause for putting this challenge together.
My thought process for this round was to make things pretty difficult in targeting what is already a very hard deck to specifically design for, midrange. Midrange decks are supposed to be adaptive and play threats that stabilize well against aggro threats while still out racing control. Since I defined the "current standard" as an environment where midrange hadnt really hit the power level it needed to be at, entries would need to cover both aggro and control scenarios.
Making the keyword list be the main challenge was a way to eat up a lot of power on your 4cc cards, though at the same time give it direction. Pretty much every design played off of one of the keywords, which I expected. I picked an ability from each color then when used correctly would create pretty distinct combinations. At the same time it pressured you to make high powered cards. Locking the cost at 4 made it even harder to build in the mandatory keywords.
I like to give challenges that may not have perfect answers to force people to make cuts and decision. While I feel this challenge was very difficult, I felt there were feasible answers.
That skullbag guy is ripped! Hes flexing his biceps and showinf his sick trimmed abs. The art looks like it was a painted posing Mr. Olympia!.
Hehehe, kidding
Was the rare (nyxed) black card suppose to have been Thoughtseize?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MtG is where you can hate white players or black players, and still not be racist.
That skullbag guy is ripped! Hes flexing his biceps and showinf his sick trimmed abs. The art looks like it was a painted posing Mr. Olympia!.
Hehehe, kidding
Was the rare (nyxed) black card suppose to have been Thoughtseize?
Hahah, no, I didn't have a particular card in mind. Funny how that almost fits. Except the part about a new Innistrad mechanic.
Congratulations bravelion83! Also, thank you to IcariiFA for a month of riveting challenges.
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)
Again many thanks to everyone, host, judges and opponents. As I said earlier February is crazy busy for me for work reasons, in fact this is actually the first time I even log in to the forums since I posted the design for the final round of January, and I see I am out of time to submit as a player in February round 1, so I think I might just skip a month and be back for the March MCC. I'd like to be able to help with judging February, but I'm not sure I have the time this month to do that. See you all again in March!
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.)
Congrats bravelion! A very nice card you designed.
I really like gravestitch (the gameplay it promotes is great, and it feels very different from other graveyard mechanics), but it just doesn't work out too well in paper, as all the judges noted. It works great online. I wish I could bridge the gap somehow. For starters reducing the choices from 3 to 2 would be good (base stats OR abilities). Hemlock recommended using a new word "replace" instead of "exchange", and that would reduce the amount of tracking. I think those 2 changes would make it printable and not too complex. Still a bit of a nuisance in paper - as with most exile effects you'd put the exiled card underneath the other card, and you'd have a FRF or AKH punch out with "stats" or "abilities" instead of "dragons", "khans", or "exerted".
I'm a bit miffed that no one understood the flavor. I contemplated adding a flavor line to drive the flavor home, but thought it would carry through. The line I almost added was: "Ludevic, let's give it two legs of equal length next time." Clearly gravestitch is showing up in a world in which zombie entities are being stitched together, all imperfect but hopefully becoming something better as you mish-mash them up. The giant zombie was "teetering", about to collapse and have all of its skulls come crashing down onto the world destroying everything. In my card render I scoped it appropriately to emphasize my interpretation of the art. Several of the judges criticized that a 6/1 trample creature couldn't be a giant, or that the art couldn't be depicting a large creature or amalgam, but that makes no sense to me (especially once you consider what a set where zombies are being stitched together as amalgams looks like). I suppose, at bare minimum, y'all now know what my thinking was. I regret not adding the flavor line.
It didn't seem that the judges looked at my rules notes. Every judge took off points for my use of "this creature", but, as with soulbond creatures, that language seems necessary for cards with gravestitch. If the ability is going to be transferred onto another creature, it needs to use "this creature" language to refer to itself if the ability is going to transfer. Another interesting thing I found out is that Wizards did create a rule during Kaladesh that established that if a creature lacks a power or toughness for whatever reason, its power or toughness becomes zero. Thus I don't think that the Tarmogoyf issue I was struggling with my ooze card in the CCL and Teetering Amalgam here in the MCC is actually an issue anymore. I explained this in my notes, but no judge commented on it and just took off quality points instead. I'd definitely like to hear what folks make of rule 208.5. Either I'm reading the rule wrong or we as a community have to update our rules knowledge.
I enjoyed the challenge. The whole month had fun challenges. Thanks IcariiFA! And once again, a well-deserved trophy for bravelion
I really like gravestitch (the gameplay it promotes is great, and it feels very different from other graveyard mechanics), but it just doesn't work out too well in paper, as all the judges noted. It works great online. I wish I could bridge the gap somehow. For starters reducing the choices from 3 to 2 would be good (base stats OR abilities). Hemlock recommended using a new word "replace" instead of "exchange", and that would reduce the amount of tracking. I think those 2 changes would make it printable and not too complex. Still a bit of a nuisance in paper - as with most exile effects you'd put the exiled card underneath the other card, and you'd have a FRF or AKH punch out with "stats" or "abilities" instead of "dragons", "khans", or "exerted".
While these changes would help, I really think this mechanic would still be overly complex and require too much tracking to be successful at common. Paper magic is the target of the game, so pointing that it works better online isn't significant.
I'm a bit miffed that no one understood the flavor. I contemplated adding a flavor line to drive the flavor home, but thought it would carry through. The line I almost added was: "Ludevic, let's give it two legs of equal length next time." Clearly gravestitch is showing up in a world in which zombie entities are being stitched together, all imperfect but hopefully becoming something better as you mish-mash them up. The giant zombie was "teetering", about to collapse and have all of its skulls come crashing down onto the world destroying everything. In my card render I scoped it appropriately to emphasize my interpretation of the art. Several of the judges criticized that a 6/1 trample creature couldn't be a giant, or that the art couldn't be depicting a large creature or amalgam, but that makes no sense to me (especially once you consider what a set where zombies are being stitched together as amalgams looks like). I suppose, at bare minimum, y'all now know what my thinking was. I regret not adding the flavor line.
We understood the flavor fine. We just all disagreed with you in using that with this art. Your name and typing didn't jive with it.
It didn't seem that the judges looked at my rules notes. Every judge took off points for my use of "this creature", but, as with soulbond creatures, that language seems necessary for cards with gravestitch. If the ability is going to be transferred onto another creature, it needs to use "this creature" language to refer to itself if the ability is going to transfer. Another interesting thing I found out is that Wizards did create a rule during Kaladesh that established that if a creature lacks a power or toughness for whatever reason, its power or toughness becomes zero. Thus I don't think that the Tarmogoyf issue I was struggling with my ooze card in the CCL and Teetering Amalgam here in the MCC is actually an issue anymore. I explained this in my notes, but no judge commented on it and just took off quality points instead. I'd definitely like to hear what folks make of rule 208.5. Either I'm reading the rule wrong or we as a community have to update our rules knowledge.
I don't think soulbond has synomous wording with your effect. Soulbond is a keyword ability that pairs creature as a trigger and has a static effect that checks for these pairs. Yours is an activatde ability that replaces information. I don't see any soulbond creatures that refer to your wording, so I feel the judges here are likely right that it is off.
On the other hand, I'll need to look into how 208.5 is applied since, like you, I've been "corrected" on the matter recently when it come to stat defining abilities being overwritten.
If you were to put the following ability onto a card named Bear Cub, what would happen?
"When Reaper of the Souls dies, return target creature card from your graveyard to the battlefield."
By my current understanding of the rules of Magic, that ability would not trigger upon Bear Cub's death if put onto Bear Cub because Bear Cub is not named "Reaper of the Souls". Hence why "this creature" language seems necessary.
If you were to put the following ability onto a card named Bear Cub, what would happen?
"When Reaper of the Souls dies, return target creature card from your graveyard to the battlefield."
By my current understanding of the rules of Magic, that ability would do nothing if put onto Bear Cub because Bear Cub is not named "Reaper of the Souls". Hence why "this creature" language seems necessary.
If a Bear Cubgained that ability, then when the creature died, the ability would trigger. An object's own name in its own text means "this object" and nothing else. That's why Experiment Kraj and Quicksilver Elemental and many other cards actually work, and why, for example, Goblin Arsonist's ability doesn't trigger four times if there are four of them on the battlefield.
Did I really forget the entire type line?
I've taken a break for too long. Well, I guess it's going to be fun for the judge to guess what it would have been.
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
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Dire Fleet Ravager and Queen Marchesa show us that menace would come before haste if both were printed on a card with neither having their reminder text. I'm pretty sure I explain this all above somewhere. It's been a little while since I wrote it, but I stand by what it says.
Sorry again, just in the spirit of competition, I want to ensure everyone has as maximally equal of a chance as one another to avoid common mistakes.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
When you staple 3 of that list's keywords to a card, you're taking up significant power real-estate, which makes it that much tougher to design the card for Standard and specifically for midrange. I'm pretty confident it is impossible to design a balanced "broadly flexible" Standard midrange card given that specific 3 keyword restriction. I suspect IcariiFA chose those 3 keywords to make the challenge as difficult as possible, though I'd like to hear from him about the design of the challenge itself. I think there was a lot of thought that went into the challenge's design. I've been waiting for the challenge to be over so I could hear from him about it!
The fun part about Dashan, in my opinion, is the dance that would take place with this card on the battlefield between aggressive and midrange players. Against control this card is less interesting - you just want to flip it as soon as possible. But when the battlefield is cluttered and threats are bashing into each other, declaring yourself the Monarch is a strategic move, one that can backfire. Dashan definitely heightens the urgency of the game state and the strategic choices both players make.
I designed Dashan for the upcoming Core Set, so I had this current Standard, especially post-rotation Standard, in mind when designing him, his flavor, and choosing his abilities. I think it'd be cool to have a cycle of 5 creatures that, when transformed, make you the Monarch (similar to Magic Origins's 5 creatures that transformed into planeswalkers).
Making the keyword list be the main challenge was a way to eat up a lot of power on your 4cc cards, though at the same time give it direction. Pretty much every design played off of one of the keywords, which I expected. I picked an ability from each color then when used correctly would create pretty distinct combinations. At the same time it pressured you to make high powered cards. Locking the cost at 4 made it even harder to build in the mandatory keywords.
I like to give challenges that may not have perfect answers to force people to make cuts and decision. While I feel this challenge was very difficult, I felt there were feasible answers.
Hehehe, kidding
Was the rare (nyxed) black card suppose to have been Thoughtseize?
Hahah, no, I didn't have a particular card in mind. Funny how that almost fits. Except the part about a new Innistrad mechanic.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
bravelion83: 23 + 21.5 + 21 = 65.5
Forestsguy: 18.5 + 16.5 + 16.5 = 51.5
kjsharp: 18.5 + 20 + 17 = 55.5
We have a winner - Bravelion83, congrats on being the first winner of 2018!
Until next time!
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 really like gravestitch (the gameplay it promotes is great, and it feels very different from other graveyard mechanics), but it just doesn't work out too well in paper, as all the judges noted. It works great online. I wish I could bridge the gap somehow. For starters reducing the choices from 3 to 2 would be good (base stats OR abilities). Hemlock recommended using a new word "replace" instead of "exchange", and that would reduce the amount of tracking. I think those 2 changes would make it printable and not too complex. Still a bit of a nuisance in paper - as with most exile effects you'd put the exiled card underneath the other card, and you'd have a FRF or AKH punch out with "stats" or "abilities" instead of "dragons", "khans", or "exerted".
I'm a bit miffed that no one understood the flavor. I contemplated adding a flavor line to drive the flavor home, but thought it would carry through. The line I almost added was: "Ludevic, let's give it two legs of equal length next time." Clearly gravestitch is showing up in a world in which zombie entities are being stitched together, all imperfect but hopefully becoming something better as you mish-mash them up. The giant zombie was "teetering", about to collapse and have all of its skulls come crashing down onto the world destroying everything. In my card render I scoped it appropriately to emphasize my interpretation of the art. Several of the judges criticized that a 6/1 trample creature couldn't be a giant, or that the art couldn't be depicting a large creature or amalgam, but that makes no sense to me (especially once you consider what a set where zombies are being stitched together as amalgams looks like). I suppose, at bare minimum, y'all now know what my thinking was. I regret not adding the flavor line.
It didn't seem that the judges looked at my rules notes. Every judge took off points for my use of "this creature", but, as with soulbond creatures, that language seems necessary for cards with gravestitch. If the ability is going to be transferred onto another creature, it needs to use "this creature" language to refer to itself if the ability is going to transfer. Another interesting thing I found out is that Wizards did create a rule during Kaladesh that established that if a creature lacks a power or toughness for whatever reason, its power or toughness becomes zero. Thus I don't think that the Tarmogoyf issue I was struggling with my ooze card in the CCL and Teetering Amalgam here in the MCC is actually an issue anymore. I explained this in my notes, but no judge commented on it and just took off quality points instead. I'd definitely like to hear what folks make of rule 208.5. Either I'm reading the rule wrong or we as a community have to update our rules knowledge.
I enjoyed the challenge. The whole month had fun challenges. Thanks IcariiFA! And once again, a well-deserved trophy for bravelion
We understood the flavor fine. We just all disagreed with you in using that with this art. Your name and typing didn't jive with it.
I don't think soulbond has synomous wording with your effect. Soulbond is a keyword ability that pairs creature as a trigger and has a static effect that checks for these pairs. Yours is an activatde ability that replaces information. I don't see any soulbond creatures that refer to your wording, so I feel the judges here are likely right that it is off.
On the other hand, I'll need to look into how 208.5 is applied since, like you, I've been "corrected" on the matter recently when it come to stat defining abilities being overwritten.
"When Reaper of the Souls dies, return target creature card from your graveyard to the battlefield."
By my current understanding of the rules of Magic, that ability would not trigger upon Bear Cub's death if put onto Bear Cub because Bear Cub is not named "Reaper of the Souls". Hence why "this creature" language seems necessary.
If a Bear Cub gained that ability, then when the creature died, the ability would trigger. An object's own name in its own text means "this object" and nothing else. That's why Experiment Kraj and Quicksilver Elemental and many other cards actually work, and why, for example, Goblin Arsonist's ability doesn't trigger four times if there are four of them on the battlefield.
(To be specific, this is rule 201.4.)
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
I've taken a break for too long. Well, I guess it's going to be fun for the judge to guess what it would have been.
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