And the results for April, Round 4 are here. Congratulations everyone it was a really tough challenge and you have all done extraordinarily well! Well done!
I just wanted to throw out a couple comments based on your critique.
Creative Writing - I like the idea of eternity and reincarnation mixed together in an avatar creature. Keep in mind magic does not have a plural since it is a mass noun so "magics" not only looks but is incorrect.
"Magics" is intentional and correct as a reference to the supernatural at large, not as a plural to magic. It is a word that invokes a more arcane sense of grammar and is not wrong.
Quality (2.5/3) - The second ability does not have to "target" a card. See Ashiok, Nightmare Weaver for reference. It's sufficient to say "Put a card exiled..."
I used pull from eternity's oracle text as wording for the card, so I see target as an acceptable wording. As a side note, it's part of why I thought this kind of effect made sense in white.
Balance - I find this card very underwhelming in terms of balance. You pay four colors to get a 4/4 that cannot protect itself, and whose effect is heavily dependent on what enters your graveyard... plus you can usually put only one card exiled this way into your hand, and even that happens with an extra cost. I get why the balance was attempted here, but I think it pushed the card into the underwhelming sector.
In limited it would be a real bomb. In Standard it could see play especially with the four-colored Dragon Control deck presently top-ranked (too bad it's not a Dragon). But yes, even in a different Standard block it could find some place. I am not sure anyone would play this in Modern, it's a lot of fuss for card advantage and it doesn't stop reanimator strategies. Control has better cards to play in its place. As a commander it could be interesting but even so I am inclined to believe this would be a quite underpowered commander and it leads more to political hatred (plus more opportunities for opponents to remove it before you could take advantage of it).
I'm not looking to dispute your point of view on balance, HOWEVER, I wanted to use your comment here to further emphasize the need in the rubric to specify what balance is acceptable. You admit the card would play well in limited and would have a good chance of being played in standard, but say it's not well balanced. If my goal was to fit contemporary design, then wouldn't of that been spot on? These are categories that need to be clearly defined as to what is acceptable.
I have been specifically looking for references of magic used with an appended 's', and have been unable to find anything relevant. I still find it obscure so I will stand my position regarding it. A workaround is to transform it into a proper noun, 'Magics'. Then yes, that would make much more sense.
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.
There was no mutual agreement, as I never agreed to the rubric and there was no formal vote taken. I wanted more points to be dedicated to quality because it was the most logical place to put them without unbalancing the whole thing. I appreciate that you assumed I was being lazy, however. I'm hosting this month, and while I am definitely open to discussion about the rubric, you're pushing your rubric through even though it's not your month.
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.
I'm fine with trying out the main challenge section; my only issue is that if we make the main challenge less than mandatory, it's a slippery slope that can lead to players posting whatever card they want to regardless of the challenges. I'm of the opinion that if you want to make part of the challenge optional, utilize the subchallenge section. The main challenge should be absolute, and perhaps if a player does not meet the main challenge they could be deducted points from quality instead?
There was no mutual agreement, as I never agreed to the rubric and there was no formal vote taken.
Correct. As I said, it was initiative started by me to come up with some kind of agreement and you jumped the gun with your own rendition as a surprise.
I appreciate that you assumed I was being lazy,
Considering the last time you hosted the MCC you were over a week late in posting the final results in regards to your own deadline (despite posting on other parts of the boards just fine), you were late in judging in two of my rounds, and you were late in posting a judge thread topic for this months MCC it's hard not to see you as neglectful.
however. I'm hosting this month, and while I am definitely open to discussion about the rubric, you're pushing your rubric through even though it's not your month.
I'm pushing a consensus of more than one person. If you want to set the precedent that each organizer can do whatever they want to the rubric, that's something I see as a mistake.
There was no mutual agreement, as I never agreed to the rubric and there was no formal vote taken.
Correct. As I said, it was initiative started by me to come up with some kind of agreement and you jumped the gun with your own rendition as a surprise.
A 2 point change is hardly a new rendition, and you assume that I'm obligated to use your version of the rubric.
I appreciate that you assumed I was being lazy,
Considering the last time you hosted the MCC you were over a week late in posting the final results in regards to your own deadline (despite posting on other parts of the boards just fine), you were late in judging in two of my rounds, and you were late in posting a judge thread topic for this months MCC it's hard not to see you as neglectful.
It's true that I'm late pretty often. I try to avoid being late when I can, but at times it's not avoidable. There's a large difference between a two minute post in one of the "judge is winner" threads and a 30 minute update to the MCC. I browse MTGS on my phone when I have a little bit of down time or when I'm eating as two examples. That doesn't mean that I'm ignoring the MCC.
however. I'm hosting this month, and while I am definitely open to discussion about the rubric, you're pushing your rubric through even though it's not your month.
I'm pushing a consensus of more than one person. If you want to set the precedent that each organizer can do whatever they want to the rubric, that's something I see as a mistake.
Aside from the progress you've made in this thread towards creating the rubric (which I commend you for), you haven't approached me at all about usage of said rubric this month, despite me announcing my desire to host this month several times since just before the advent of April. You're trying to set a precedent with your new rubric, yet accuse me of setting a precedent by not immediately using your exact version of it? Additionally, it's not even like you've been doing the MCC for longer than I have; I've been participating in the MCC for longer than you've been on this website.
If you had simply PM'd me asking if we could use it this month, I'd have been fine to talk about it, and it's very likely I would have agreed. I'll still change the rubric if you can talk to me about it before the players' deadline this week, which is in roughly 10 hours.
A 2 point change is hardly a new rendition, and you assume that I'm obligated to use your version of the rubric.
Its not just my version, its one that's been modified by multiple opinions in the discussion here. The changes you made to it, deleting the main category that was a impetus for the change and adding its points elsewhere, was a modified version that had not been put up for comments. I see that as a huge difference.
It's true that I'm late pretty often. I try to avoid being late when I can, but at times it's not avoidable.
You prioritized other things and left me as an organizer and many others as contestants hanging. You repeatedly failed to communicate any issue with the deadlines that I set or you set for yourself in your own MCC until after they had passed. Up to the point where others stepped in to declare the results from your last MCC. That wasn't unavoidable, that was a choice.
Aside from the progress you've made in this thread towards creating the rubric (which I commend you for), you haven't approached me at all about usage of said rubric this month, despite me announcing my desire to host this month several times since just before the advent of April. You're trying to set a precedent with your new rubric, yet accuse me of setting a precedent by not immediately using your exact version of it?
The precedent I was trying to set was a discussion and consensus on a changed rubric. I feel you jumped the gun by taking the rubric, adding your own changes, and using it this month without any forewarning. I see what you did as hijacking the effort from what was being discussed in this thread.
Additionally, it's not even like you've been doing the MCC for longer than I have; I've been participating in the MCC for longer than you've been on this website.
This is both irrelevant and untrue as I've been a member of this forum since 2006. As I've explained elsewhere, my account was not recoverable with the transition to the curse forums. Not that "seniority" matters here, but you don't have it.
If you had simply PM'd me asking if we could use it this month, I'd have been fine to talk about it, and it's very likely I would have agreed. I'll still change the rubric if you can talk to me about it before the players' deadline this week, which is in roughly 10 hours.
I didn't PM you or anyone else to implement the rubric as I felt it was still being discussed and there were disagreements on some of the key changes. Some of which of course where your point of view. I see you as avoiding that discussion by taking the rubric that we (including you) as a group were discussing, changing it, and using it without PMing or discussing it with any of us here.
Hey bravelion, in your critique of my card for the April MCC, you docked half a Quality point for the flavour text. The "He Who Masters All" wasn't meant as an attribution, it's supposed to be a part of Biaratl's title, or as a literal translation of its name.
Maybe it should've been more clear (Biaratl, literally "he who masters all"?), but I just thought I'd point that out.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're having creature problems I feel bad for you son
You got 99 attackers but I'm blocking with 1.
The Winner is Judge | 7
This Winner is Also Judge | 6
Club Flamingo | Lots
This argument is growing petty for both of us. I actually reverted the change to the rubric a few days ago in the round 1 thread. If you want to talk more about it, PM me.
Hey bravelion, in your critique of my card for the April MCC, you docked half a Quality point for the flavour text. The "He Who Masters All" wasn't meant as an attribution, it's supposed to be a part of Biaratl's title, or as a literal translation of its name.
Maybe it should've been more clear (Biaratl, literally "he who masters all"?), but I just thought I'd point that out.
You're right, I saw the hyphen and I assumed from there it was an attribution. You should have used a comma instead of the hyphen there.
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.)
admirableadmiral wins the April MCC! Congratulations!
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.)
Bravelion83, my MCC card refers to tribes in the traditional English usage, not the Magic "tribal" usage. I understand it's a loaded term in Magic but so is just about every other word for a group of people. I also considered other words such as "families" and "nations" but none of those words felt like they fit on a GR card. I settled on "tribes" because many races in Magic, such as the elves of Zendikar, are divided into tribes. It's something that may have been clearer on a finished card with artwork.
Bravelion83, my MCC card refers to tribes in the traditional English usage, not the Magic "tribal" usage. I understand it's a loaded term in Magic but so is just about every other word for a group of people. I also considered other words such as "families" and "nations" but none of those words felt like they fit on a GR card. I settled on "tribes" because many races in Magic, such as the elves of Zendikar, are divided into tribes. It's something that may have been clearer on a finished card with artwork.
Thanks for your feedback. Excuse me but now, after judging thirteen cards between the MCC and CCL, I need a break. I'll take a look at this tomorrow, along with a general rereading of my judgings.
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 just wanted to chime in here to say that as a participant I felt I got much more valuable and relevant feedback with the modified rubric than I have in previous MCCs.
So, having judged a round now, I thought I'd raise a point about the Appeal section. One of the things we ask about the Appeal section is whether a card appeals to Spike, but often that depends on specifics of mana cost and body which in some ways are better-suited to the Balance section. My own approach so far has been to think of cards with drawbacks or high-skill play lines, which demand carefully considered decisions, as Spikey cards for the purposes of the Appeal section, and let how pushed the card is sit purely in Balance. What are other peoples' thoughts on the matter?
Bravelion83, my MCC card refers to tribes in the traditional English usage, not the Magic "tribal" usage. I understand it's a loaded term in Magic but so is just about every other word for a group of people. I also considered other words such as "families" and "nations" but none of those words felt like they fit on a GR card. I settled on "tribes" because many races in Magic, such as the elves of Zendikar, are divided into tribes. It's something that may have been clearer on a finished card with artwork.
Finally I was able to reread everything today. The fact, as you say yourself, is that unfortunately the word "tribe" has a specific meaning in Magic. For example, what if I made a card called, say, "Melt the Artifact" and it was a card that not only didn't destroy artifacts, but put artifact tokens onto the battlefield? Now, your card isn't that bad, this was just meant as an example to make my point clearer.
I think this misunderstanding would have been avoided with a very simple fix: change the number of the word "Tribes" in the card name from plural to singular, or, that's the same, just remove the final "s". What do you get? A card called "Unite the Tribe", notice the singular, which means you're uniting people from of the same tribe (in the Magic meaning) and putting them together, which is exactly what the card does mechanically. The flavor text still makes sense too, as two Elves (for example) from different planes are still "brothers", meaning "of the same tribe (again in the Magic sense)". The more I think of this card called without the plural "s" the more I like it and the more it makes sense to me as a whole.
I understand what you meant. You see the word "tribe" in the sense of how Elves are divided on Zendikar for example: Joraga, Bala Ged, and so on (if I recall correctly) as different tribes. But I wonder how many players opening a card called "Unite the Tribes" will think of that and not of the creature type. The average player would certainly think about the creature type, and that was, and still is, my point. I don't think I have to change anything in my judgment for now, because I'm still convinced of that, and I hope this more detailed explanation helps clarifying that.
I just wanted to chime in here to say that as a participant I felt I got much more valuable and relevant feedback with the modified rubric than I have in previous MCCs.
Thanks, I'm very glad to hear you say this! Judging with the modified rubric wasn't actually that different, probably because I was already implementing a very similar (not identical though) but hidden division of points. I only found two differences as a judge, both very positive to me: first, the division of points is now much clearer, as instead of assigning ten points all together I can mark with a lower score the exact area of design or development where I find some problems. The second is the presence of the main challenge section, which I found very, VERY useful. The fact that I deducted half a point there from all cards in my bracket is not intentional, it's just that all cards had something I saw as not perfectly satisfying the main challenge, which I detailed in each single case. The fact that now I'm able to express that through scoring is a HUGE improvement in the rubric in my opinion. It was something we definitely needed from my point of view, and now I'm very glad of having it as a judge.
So, having judged a round now, I thought I'd raise a point about the Appeal section. One of the things we ask about the Appeal section is whether a card appeals to Spike, but often that depends on specifics of mana cost and body which in some ways are better-suited to the Balance section. My own approach so far has been to think of cards with drawbacks or high-skill play lines, which demand carefully considered decisions, as Spikey cards for the purposes of the Appeal section, and let how pushed the card is sit purely in Balance. What are other peoples' thoughts on the matter?
I see how there may be a little overlapping there, but in my experience as a judge (this is the seventh month in a row and I don't have any intention to stop in the foreseeable future) that's never been a problem, not even a single time. You just have to judge how Spike sees the card together with Timmy and Johnny. Otherwise, what do you do? You judge two psychographics leaving out the third? The little overlapping with Balance just naturally comes from who Spike is and how he thinks and sees Magic cards. You can see it as a necessary evil, but that's just unavoidable.
As for how to judge cards meant for Spike, remember that Spike looks at one thing above all: efficiency. He wants efficient effects for an efficient cost. That's why it's the only one among the three psychographics to care about the mana cost for example. The key word for Spike is efficiency, and that often coincides with power in Magic, and that's where the overlap you noticed comes from. Spike is the one most likely to like (pun unintended) a card with a drawback as you noticed yourself, and that's true, but not because of the drawback itself, rather because the drawback allows him to have something for a discounted price.
High-skill cards are another subset of cards Spike likes, but for a different reason: because they let him show and exploit his (alleged) superior skill. Remember: what does Spike want? He want to prove something (Timmy wants to feel something, and Johnny wants to show something), mainly how good he is at the game, and how can he achieve that? One way are cards involving a high level of skill, that can let him prevail over less skilled opponents.
Hope this helps.
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 came across an issue with the rubric whilst doing my judging for the first round of May. One of my contestants submitted a card that was so obscenely powerful that it would be more powerful than a highly vintage playable card (Oath of Druids). The card would likely be so powerful that if it were ever printed, it would have to be banned in every format and restricted in vintage. Yet in spite of this, the card would have gotten an otherwise high score because only three points were allotted to balance. I ended up giving the card a balance score of -5/3 (which I expect to be controversial over the next couple of days) because I felt that the error was so massive and glaring that a simple 3 point penalty would not be sufficient in evaluating the card.
I feel that this is an issue with the current rubric; with only 3 points allotted to each section, cards can have massive weaknesses but otherwise receive a high score. 25 points just aren't enough to work with when you have to divvy them up between 9 sections. I don't have any immediately solution in mind, but I feel like it is something that should be worked out.
Hive Mind, when paired with the right card, will make your opponent lose the game on the spot. Honor of the Pure and Oblivion Stone do affect the board the turn they come out. Phyrexian Unlife also wins the game when paired with the right card. Pyromancer Ascension and Amulet of Vigor combine with their respective decks to be powerhouses when they go off; your card is perhaps an Unhallowed Pact when everything goes right.
As for your comparison between fireball and flame javelin, the difference is that your card actually scales poorly when X gets large. If you're trying to steal a Siege Rhino, then setting X to be 4 is a simple matter. However, if you want to try to steal more than one creature, you have to guess what value of X to set it at. Not only that, but if you're spending enough mana to steal two reasonably powerful creatures (the 6+ range), you could just cast a card that wins the game more immediately.
I agree that my judgment of your card was too hasty, however, and I've changed your score accordingly.
I came across an issue with the rubric whilst doing my judging for the first round of May. One of my contestants submitted a card that was so obscenely powerful that it would be more powerful than a highly vintage playable card (Oath of Druids). The card would likely be so powerful that if it were ever printed, it would have to be banned in every format and restricted in vintage. Yet in spite of this, the card would have gotten an otherwise high score because only three points were allotted to balance. I ended up giving the card a balance score of -5/3 (which I expect to be controversial over the next couple of days) because I felt that the error was so massive and glaring that a simple 3 point penalty would not be sufficient in evaluating the card.
I feel that this is an issue with the current rubric; with only 3 points allotted to each section, cards can have massive weaknesses but otherwise receive a high score. 25 points just aren't enough to work with when you have to divvy them up between 9 sections. I don't have any immediately solution in mind, but I feel like it is something that should be worked out.
I didn't have that problem myself but I can see it. It's something to think about. I've never given a negative score and neither I've ever seen it done by other judges before, but I understand where you're coming from. I don't have any immediate solution either but I'll think about it. If something comes to my mind I'll let you all know.
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.)
Does the card have to make the creature explicitly better in the now (+2/+2) or can the "better" be an effect that doesn't apply to raw power (can be played from the graveyard, return it to your hand when it dies, etc.)?
Hi with round 2 does no longer being dead count as an improvement?
Best question ever.
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)
Does the card have to make the creature explicitly better in the now (+2/+2) or can the "better" be an effect that doesn't apply to raw power (can be played from the graveyard, return it to your hand when it dies, etc.)?
Hi with round 2 does no longer being dead count as an improvement? P: e.g. return from the graveyard. Thx
Your card must add functionality or increase the potency of a creature while it is on the battlefield. Putting it onto the battlefield would not qualify.
I'd just like to point out that being turned face down is not an improvement in most cases. Just picture a scenario like this, which is possible even just in KTK limited (with the Overseer added): I control a Siege Rhino and an Overseer. You cast Murderous Cut on the Rhino. I use the Overseer's activated ability on the Rhino in response to the Cut. When the ability resolves, I regenerate the Rhino and turn it face down. It becomes a colorless 3/3 (2/2 with the bonus from the Overseer's first ability). Then, the Cut resolves but does nothing because the Rhino had a regeneration shield that gets used (so the face down Rhino gets tapped now). Where was the improvement in this very likely scenario? In the end I have a tapped face-down 3/3 Rhino that I can't even turn face up anymore (it wasn't manifested and it doesn't have a morph cost). That's certainly better than a dead Rhino, but that doesn't count for this round's challenge because of this (emphasis mine):
Your card must add functionality or increase the potency of a creature while it is on the battlefield. Putting it onto the battlefield would not qualify.
But that's definitely not better than the original Rhino, and that's true for any creature that as printed is better than a vanilla 3/3. Even if your card was accepted, if I was your judge I'd still make a significant deduction in the main challenge section because of this. I'm saying this beforehand for honesty and transparency.
EDIT: That's not counting the many Quality errors in the Overseer as written above, but that's a different matter.
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.)
It was just a rough draft, I always polish at the end. You make some very fair points, i'm going try for something different. Thanks for your help.
No problem! Always happy to help!
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.)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think because it's changing neither zone nor form.
I just wanted to throw out a couple comments based on your critique.
"Magics" is intentional and correct as a reference to the supernatural at large, not as a plural to magic. It is a word that invokes a more arcane sense of grammar and is not wrong.
I used pull from eternity's oracle text as wording for the card, so I see target as an acceptable wording. As a side note, it's part of why I thought this kind of effect made sense in white.
I'm not looking to dispute your point of view on balance, HOWEVER, I wanted to use your comment here to further emphasize the need in the rubric to specify what balance is acceptable. You admit the card would play well in limited and would have a good chance of being played in standard, but say it's not well balanced. If my goal was to fit contemporary design, then wouldn't of that been spot on? These are categories that need to be clearly defined as to what is acceptable.
...is simply incorrect. WotC themselves uses the term on several cards as seen here: http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?action=advanced&flavor= [magics]
(Don't forgot you have to copy the whole link, you can't just click on it. Stupid gatherer...)
Adding that now.
There was no mutual agreement, as I never agreed to the rubric and there was no formal vote taken. I wanted more points to be dedicated to quality because it was the most logical place to put them without unbalancing the whole thing. I appreciate that you assumed I was being lazy, however. I'm hosting this month, and while I am definitely open to discussion about the rubric, you're pushing your rubric through even though it's not your month.
I'm fine with trying out the main challenge section; my only issue is that if we make the main challenge less than mandatory, it's a slippery slope that can lead to players posting whatever card they want to regardless of the challenges. I'm of the opinion that if you want to make part of the challenge optional, utilize the subchallenge section. The main challenge should be absolute, and perhaps if a player does not meet the main challenge they could be deducted points from quality instead?
Correct. As I said, it was initiative started by me to come up with some kind of agreement and you jumped the gun with your own rendition as a surprise.
Considering the last time you hosted the MCC you were over a week late in posting the final results in regards to your own deadline (despite posting on other parts of the boards just fine), you were late in judging in two of my rounds, and you were late in posting a judge thread topic for this months MCC it's hard not to see you as neglectful.
I'm pushing a consensus of more than one person. If you want to set the precedent that each organizer can do whatever they want to the rubric, that's something I see as a mistake.
A 2 point change is hardly a new rendition, and you assume that I'm obligated to use your version of the rubric.
It's true that I'm late pretty often. I try to avoid being late when I can, but at times it's not avoidable. There's a large difference between a two minute post in one of the "judge is winner" threads and a 30 minute update to the MCC. I browse MTGS on my phone when I have a little bit of down time or when I'm eating as two examples. That doesn't mean that I'm ignoring the MCC.
Aside from the progress you've made in this thread towards creating the rubric (which I commend you for), you haven't approached me at all about usage of said rubric this month, despite me announcing my desire to host this month several times since just before the advent of April. You're trying to set a precedent with your new rubric, yet accuse me of setting a precedent by not immediately using your exact version of it? Additionally, it's not even like you've been doing the MCC for longer than I have; I've been participating in the MCC for longer than you've been on this website.
If you had simply PM'd me asking if we could use it this month, I'd have been fine to talk about it, and it's very likely I would have agreed. I'll still change the rubric if you can talk to me about it before the players' deadline this week, which is in roughly 10 hours.
Its not just my version, its one that's been modified by multiple opinions in the discussion here. The changes you made to it, deleting the main category that was a impetus for the change and adding its points elsewhere, was a modified version that had not been put up for comments. I see that as a huge difference.
You prioritized other things and left me as an organizer and many others as contestants hanging. You repeatedly failed to communicate any issue with the deadlines that I set or you set for yourself in your own MCC until after they had passed. Up to the point where others stepped in to declare the results from your last MCC. That wasn't unavoidable, that was a choice.
The precedent I was trying to set was a discussion and consensus on a changed rubric. I feel you jumped the gun by taking the rubric, adding your own changes, and using it this month without any forewarning. I see what you did as hijacking the effort from what was being discussed in this thread.
This is both irrelevant and untrue as I've been a member of this forum since 2006. As I've explained elsewhere, my account was not recoverable with the transition to the curse forums. Not that "seniority" matters here, but you don't have it.
I didn't PM you or anyone else to implement the rubric as I felt it was still being discussed and there were disagreements on some of the key changes. Some of which of course where your point of view. I see you as avoiding that discussion by taking the rubric that we (including you) as a group were discussing, changing it, and using it without PMing or discussing it with any of us here.
Maybe it should've been more clear (Biaratl, literally "he who masters all"?), but I just thought I'd point that out.
You got 99 attackers but I'm blocking with 1.
The Winner is Judge | 7
This Winner is Also Judge | 6
Club Flamingo | Lots
This argument is growing petty for both of us. I actually reverted the change to the rubric a few days ago in the round 1 thread. If you want to talk more about it, PM me.
You're right, I saw the hyphen and I assumed from there it was an attribution. You should have used a comma instead of the hyphen there.
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.)
admirableadmiral: 21 + 20 + 22 + 22.5 = 85.5
Ninja Caterpie: 20.5 + 18 + 23 + 20.5 = 82
IcariiFA: 21 + 18.5 + 22 + 18.5 = 80
PsyOp: 20 + 13 + 18 + 17 = 68
admirableadmiral wins the April MCC! Congratulations!
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.)
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.)
Finally I was able to reread everything today. The fact, as you say yourself, is that unfortunately the word "tribe" has a specific meaning in Magic. For example, what if I made a card called, say, "Melt the Artifact" and it was a card that not only didn't destroy artifacts, but put artifact tokens onto the battlefield? Now, your card isn't that bad, this was just meant as an example to make my point clearer.
I think this misunderstanding would have been avoided with a very simple fix: change the number of the word "Tribes" in the card name from plural to singular, or, that's the same, just remove the final "s". What do you get? A card called "Unite the Tribe", notice the singular, which means you're uniting people from of the same tribe (in the Magic meaning) and putting them together, which is exactly what the card does mechanically. The flavor text still makes sense too, as two Elves (for example) from different planes are still "brothers", meaning "of the same tribe (again in the Magic sense)". The more I think of this card called without the plural "s" the more I like it and the more it makes sense to me as a whole.
I understand what you meant. You see the word "tribe" in the sense of how Elves are divided on Zendikar for example: Joraga, Bala Ged, and so on (if I recall correctly) as different tribes. But I wonder how many players opening a card called "Unite the Tribes" will think of that and not of the creature type. The average player would certainly think about the creature type, and that was, and still is, my point. I don't think I have to change anything in my judgment for now, because I'm still convinced of that, and I hope this more detailed explanation helps clarifying that.
Thanks, I'm very glad to hear you say this! Judging with the modified rubric wasn't actually that different, probably because I was already implementing a very similar (not identical though) but hidden division of points. I only found two differences as a judge, both very positive to me: first, the division of points is now much clearer, as instead of assigning ten points all together I can mark with a lower score the exact area of design or development where I find some problems. The second is the presence of the main challenge section, which I found very, VERY useful. The fact that I deducted half a point there from all cards in my bracket is not intentional, it's just that all cards had something I saw as not perfectly satisfying the main challenge, which I detailed in each single case. The fact that now I'm able to express that through scoring is a HUGE improvement in the rubric in my opinion. It was something we definitely needed from my point of view, and now I'm very glad of having it as a judge.
I see how there may be a little overlapping there, but in my experience as a judge (this is the seventh month in a row and I don't have any intention to stop in the foreseeable future) that's never been a problem, not even a single time. You just have to judge how Spike sees the card together with Timmy and Johnny. Otherwise, what do you do? You judge two psychographics leaving out the third? The little overlapping with Balance just naturally comes from who Spike is and how he thinks and sees Magic cards. You can see it as a necessary evil, but that's just unavoidable.
As for how to judge cards meant for Spike, remember that Spike looks at one thing above all: efficiency. He wants efficient effects for an efficient cost. That's why it's the only one among the three psychographics to care about the mana cost for example. The key word for Spike is efficiency, and that often coincides with power in Magic, and that's where the overlap you noticed comes from. Spike is the one most likely to like (pun unintended) a card with a drawback as you noticed yourself, and that's true, but not because of the drawback itself, rather because the drawback allows him to have something for a discounted price.
High-skill cards are another subset of cards Spike likes, but for a different reason: because they let him show and exploit his (alleged) superior skill. Remember: what does Spike want? He want to prove something (Timmy wants to feel something, and Johnny wants to show something), mainly how good he is at the game, and how can he achieve that? One way are cards involving a high level of skill, that can let him prevail over less skilled opponents.
Hope this helps.
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 feel that this is an issue with the current rubric; with only 3 points allotted to each section, cards can have massive weaknesses but otherwise receive a high score. 25 points just aren't enough to work with when you have to divvy them up between 9 sections. I don't have any immediately solution in mind, but I feel like it is something that should be worked out.
Hive Mind, when paired with the right card, will make your opponent lose the game on the spot. Honor of the Pure and Oblivion Stone do affect the board the turn they come out. Phyrexian Unlife also wins the game when paired with the right card. Pyromancer Ascension and Amulet of Vigor combine with their respective decks to be powerhouses when they go off; your card is perhaps an Unhallowed Pact when everything goes right.
As for your comparison between fireball and flame javelin, the difference is that your card actually scales poorly when X gets large. If you're trying to steal a Siege Rhino, then setting X to be 4 is a simple matter. However, if you want to try to steal more than one creature, you have to guess what value of X to set it at. Not only that, but if you're spending enough mana to steal two reasonably powerful creatures (the 6+ range), you could just cast a card that wins the game more immediately.
I agree that my judgment of your card was too hasty, however, and I've changed your score accordingly.
I didn't have that problem myself but I can see it. It's something to think about. I've never given a negative score and neither I've ever seen it done by other judges before, but I understand where you're coming from. I don't have any immediate solution either but I'll think about it. If something comes to my mind I'll let you all know.
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.)
Does the card have to make the creature explicitly better in the now (+2/+2) or can the "better" be an effect that doesn't apply to raw power (can be played from the graveyard, return it to your hand when it dies, etc.)?
Best question ever.
Your card must add functionality or increase the potency of a creature while it is on the battlefield. Putting it onto the battlefield would not qualify.
But that's definitely not better than the original Rhino, and that's true for any creature that as printed is better than a vanilla 3/3. Even if your card was accepted, if I was your judge I'd still make a significant deduction in the main challenge section because of this. I'm saying this beforehand for honesty and transparency.
EDIT: That's not counting the many Quality errors in the Overseer as written above, but that's a different matter.
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.)
No problem! Always happy to help!
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.)