MTG Salvation

I'm doing fine.

My judging will all be in today. Just had a hard week.

Quote from Gerrard"s Mom »

Weatherlight Reforged 4
Legendary Artifact - Vehicle (R)
Flying
Crew 2 (Tap any number of creatures you control with total power 2 or more: This Vehicle becomes an artifact creature until end of turn.)
Weatherlight Reforged has all abilities of creatures crewing it.
4/4

I'm hoping somebody with better knowledge of the rules can explain to me what this card's P/T would be if it was simultaneously crewed by Tarmogoyf and Crusader of Odric? Since both Goyf's and the Crusader's abilities are checked in the same layer (7.b I believe), would it check the time stamp of each card, then apply the P/T of whichever creature entered the battlefield most recently? Thanks in advance to anybody that can shed some light on this.

Since you've brought this discussion out here, I'll go over my research and review of your question. The two cards that I've used as a point of comparison are Grusilda, Monster Masher and The Scarab God.

Grusilda puts to monsters together, and in the unstable FAQ, it was ruled that if two CDAs (characteristic defining abilities) for a creatures p/t existed, both would be counted separately then added together. The Scarab God is a copy effect, but ruling on it make it clear that even if the token it creates copies a CDA, it would still have a P/T of 4/4. These were the the points of reference I felt were closest. That said, there is still some grey area here. Weatherlight reforged isn't copying a creature like the scarab god, and it already has a base P/T unlike in your example of using Tarmogoyf and Crusader or Odric.

When asking others, I was also told to look at rule 604.3a which says that an ability "conveys information about an object's characteristics that would normally be found elsewhere on that object (such as in its ... power/toughness box) or overrides information found elsewhere on that object.". I feel that a possible ruling would be that Tarmogoyf and Odric P/T characteristic defining abilities would be calculated separately, combined, and then override the Weatherlights base P/T. But I'm not sure.

This area seems grey, and the rules to make it work so far have only been discussed in un sets, so I decided to go back and deduct an additional half point to the cards viability. However, Viability also considers the cards color and rarity, so at most I'd only take off a single point if a card "did not work within the current rules" so long as that rules error/mistake didn't leak into other categories, which here I felt it didn't or otherwise was so minor a leak it wasn't worth noting.

things are settling down n are more stable for me rn. thanks again for everyone's patience.

round 2 will be up tomorrow.

Thanks for the reply IcariiFA, and thanks for the time you've spent looking into this in general. The idea that Tarmogoyf and Crusader of Ordric's P/T would be additive never even began to cross my mind. Seems crazy. Is there anybody that knows for sure what would happen here?

I'm pretty sure that new rules and clarifications would be created should Gerrard's Mom's card be printed. It's very difficult to just guess because we aren't the ones in power who are determining the rules. To answer your question Flatline, I think "what would happen here" is whatever you would want to have happen there if you were in Wizards R&D.

I'm sure some day, especially as digital MTG grows in importance, that cards like Gerrard Mom's or mechanics like the gravestitch ability I created last month will be created, and at that point Wizards will determine how they want to craft the rules for those cards. And then, perhaps five or ten years later, in response to a new card being created, they'll change the rules yet again. For example, the busted interaction between Goblin Dark-Dwellers and Boom//Bust prompted a rules change.

For Gerrard Mom's specific card, the easiest thing to do would be to change the rules line to "Weatherlight Reforged has all abilities of creatures crewing it except those that set base power and toughness." There are probably some ways to just add some italicized text afterward as well: "If multiple abilities try to set Weatherlight Reforged's base power and toughness, choose one of them to apply."

Personally I don't think we should allow the fact that we aren't working at Wizards to hamper our card designs or our creativity. Were I judging Gerrard Mom's card, I wouldn't take off any points. A card's viability should not be tied to the card's designer's employment status.
------------------
Unrelated: how does MTGSalvation deal with cards like Boom/Bust, Beck/Call, and Commit [to] Memory? I can't figure out how to get those cards to display on the forum. Is there a special trick to it?

Please don't pigeonhole gravestich in here.

I only deducted a half point for a reason. I'm not looking to overly penalize cards that take risk and push the boundaries of the rules, but it's important to understand where a card currently "breaks" the game. The instance here with Gerrard Mom's card felt fairly narrow in stepping out of bounds and I judged according.

here's the schedule for the rest of the month...

-youth-
submission period: march 12th to 15th (monday to thursday).
judgement period: march 16th to 18th (friday to sunday).

-adulthood-
submission period: march 19th to 22th (monday to thursday).
judgement period: march 23rd to 25th (friday to sunday).

-old age-
submission period: march 26th to 29th (monday to thursday).
judgement period: march 30th to april 3rd (friday to monday).

Quote from kjsharp »

Personally I don't think we should allow the fact that we aren't working at Wizards to hamper our card designs or our creativity. Were I judging Gerrard Mom's card, I wouldn't take off any points. A card's viability should not be tied to the card's designer's employment status.

I get what you're saying here kj, and I employ the same thought process a lot of the time, but if you're not going to deduct points in the MCC for a card failing to fit into the current rules of Magic, then why ask the question "Does it bend or break the rules of the game?" in the viability section of the rubric? Even if you did work in Magic R&D, and had the ability to change the rules to allow for a specific design, I would still think that the fact that you would need to do so would weigh heavily in the decision of whether or not to print the card.

I don't expect any kind of re-scoring but rather am just posting for future thought. On challenges that ask to design two cards, such as this challenge, it feels weird to be penalized twice for not completing the optional sub-challenges. Normally we are asked to design a single card and sometimes I will submit a card that doesn't fit in with a subchallenge because I feel my card will perform better without having to shoe-horn it. In this challenge I applied the same idea but was actually put at a 2 point disadvantage rather than the typical one.

I probably should have asked before I decided to not make my one card multicolor but really didn't consider it until I was reviewing my score. Again, I don't expect to be re-scored or anything.

Glad you're doing okay Rudyard!

Flatline, I would interpret that question differently. I interpret it as "Could Wizards print this card?" not "Could I print this card?". The question in the rubric needs to be asked because there are many things about the rules Wizards couldn't wave a magic wand and change. The basic structure of the game is ossified.

I agree that if a card introduced something that conflicted with the rules in a way that wasn't easily or cleanly resolvable it would not be as "viable" as it could be and thus would be fair game for docking points there. In my mind, though, directly conflicting with the rules of the game is different than operating in a gray area that needs further clarification. I think that question is more art than science, and something the judges have to think about and ask themselves: "Could I see this being printed?" "Could I envision a clean way for Wizards to execute rules for this card or mechanic that isn't confusing or destructive?"

Again kjsharp, I get the basic idea of what you're saying, and don't disagree with you entirely, but if you ask yourself, "Could Wizards print this card?", the answer is always yes, because Wizards can technically print or change any rule they want. I understand that certain rule changes are easier to implement than others, but all rule changes come with some amount of baggage. Constantly changing the rules is confusing and detrimental to any game, and should only be done if the payoff is large enough to make it worthwhile. While I understand that people need room to be creative, applying the line of thinking you're suggesting is a slippery slope that can apply to justify almost anything. Wizards could easily decide to give deathtouch to white creatures, does that mean that doing so shouldn't be considered a color bleed in the MCC rubric? If so, what's the point of the rubric at all? People are free to evaluate cards any way they please in the DCC and CCL, but the MCC has a rubric, and current rules and design philosophy are supposed to be taken into consideration when using the rubric. At least as far as I understand.

My judgments for round 1 of March are done - I figured that was the more pressing matter. I'll actually do the February round 4 judgments tomorrow since that can sort of wait, considering it's just winner determination and there's no round afterwards that anyone's waiting for.

Quote from Koopa »

I don't expect any kind of re-scoring but rather am just posting for future thought. On challenges that ask to design two cards, such as this challenge, it feels weird to be penalized twice for not completing the optional sub-challenges. Normally we are asked to design a single card and sometimes I will submit a card that doesn't fit in with a subchallenge because I feel my card will perform better without having to shoe-horn it. In this challenge I applied the same idea but was actually put at a 2 point disadvantage rather than the typical one.
I probably should have asked before I decided to not make my one card multicolor but really didn't consider it until I was reviewing my score. Again, I don't expect to be re-scored or anything.

I'm sorry if it appears that my judgement is unfair, it certainly was not intended this way. Also I personally don't think it is in this case. I hope I can sufficiently explain what I mean.
For one I had to come up with a way to judge a set of two cards. Splitting the points for the main challenge did not make sense to me, so I added the points to both entries. Regarding the subchallenges I thought that it was possible for one card to satisfiy both (SC1: one of the cards is multicolored or colorless; SC2 one of the cards is a common.) While afterwards it appears as only one possible solution to the problem, I here too added the total number of points to both entries.
Further, looking at your score again I noticed that you would have had less points if I had judged in the way you would have liked me to judge you (or how I understand it.) Gateless Youth, as a mono white uncommon and Backalley Mugging, a mono black common, would combined satisfiy just one subchallenge, netting you 1 point.
I'd like to add that entries between judge brackets in the first rounds are not compared to each other. What this means to me is, that even if one judge's way of assessing the cards is or could be seen as unfair in any other way, as long as all entries in one judge bracket are assessed by the same standards, it doesn't really matter if they are assessed good or bad.
This doesn't mean that I lower my standards as judge, however. I don't want contestants to feel bad for taking part in the challenge in any case. It does happen that I later in the judging process notice that I could have done better or I find an additional point that's important to the whole challenge, as it happened with the differention between child and youth. I then go and reassess all entries, to have a result as neutral and fair as possible. In another case I would notice that I just like a certain card a lot more than other entries, as it appeals to something I specifically like about magic. But the entry still had some flaws and I urged myself to be extra careful noticing and evaluating them. Yet it does happen, like in Flatline's case, that I unknowingly make an outright mistake in my evaluation.
After all, judging is not and probably can't be a perfectly exact science. My wish is that you don't feel bad for taking part in the challenge this time or any past or future time. I urge you and everyone else to tell me if some judgement related thing I wrote appears unfair or not clear enough. I'll happily look into it and improve, both the score and my way of assessing, whenever possible.

That said I want to agree to another point you make: In that contestants should not force the overall design to meet one more or even both subchallenges. Under normal circumstances you can only get 1 point for each. While on the other side it can cost more points in other parts of the evaluation if added subchallenge criteria don't seem to fit to the rest of the card.

Quote from Flatline »

I agree that two card challenges should be allowed for the finals.

I too agree that two card challenges should be possible in the finals. Or even prior rounds if there are enough judges. I personally am perfectly fine with up to 8, or 2 times 4, cards to judge at a single time.
I'd also like to have an official uniform way of juding two cards. As the above case shows the current situation can lead to inconvenience among contestants and judges.

Quote from Flatline »

Thanks Antiantiserum. I didn't mean to sound so harsh in my previous post.

No worries, I didn't take it this way : )

Quote from Rudyard »

sweet lord baby jesus help me, I'm having to write this on my phone…
splitting the 12 submissions into 2 brackets of 6... my phone is dying. hope i can finish the 2nd bracket before it does. did I mention I suddenly had to move from Seattle to Olympia yesterday? long story. bad timing. my life is in flux rn, plz bear with me.
EDIT: judgery complete with 14% battery life left. holy heck!

I'd like to emphatize how much this reads as the beginning of a psycho horror thriller to me. Props for getting this done, Rudyard!

- sincerely, your random internet person

thanks, random internet person. how spoopy would it have been if that was the last post i ever made on here and nobody ever heard from me again? and plot twist: the killer was MDenham







... wait... what are you doing here? how did you... what-

what's that in your hand?! oh god

oh no aaassfdsfgfhyjykghjhsrthpppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp

MDenham couldn't be the killer, he's already dead

but then who was phone

I'm really sorry my February round 4 judgments keep getting delayed. Something seems to come up every time I get a chance to do them. I apologize to the finalists for keeping them waiting - a sincere thank you to my other two judges for being prompt and giving such insightful judgments. I promise they'll be in for real tomorrow.

Congrats, at last, to Gerrard's Mom for winning February!

I have decided o a path, should I survive round 2 of march, I will submit yet another entry Animal Planet style. Muahahahahahahah.

Thanks to the hard working judges and to the fellow competitors for February! Nice to know that I can still do OK here after scrubbing out of GDS

You clearly haven't lost a step, old man. Here's to getting to a final together sometime soon to see if you can still hang with me, though.

just a final public reminder that round 2 for march closes tonight

He's back and better than ever! Congrats Gerrard's Mom.

Rudyard you scared me! Hehe. Had me thinking I'd posted my design in the wrong thread or something....lol. Curious how brackets work if we don't get entries from the last 3. Do 3 brackets of 2 just advance and 1 person is subject to elimination in the unlucky group of 3?

sorry, BlackWaltz3, didn't mean to spook you.

it's a question as to how to best divide the ten entries three ways.