Can someone explain to me why "host" and "snow" are supertypes, yet "cartouche", "aura", "tribal," and "orc" are subtypes?
Tribal is it's own problem, but the short/simplified answer for the rest is a supertype is something that can be applied to multiple card types while a subtype only makes sense within one type of card.
Supertype > Type > Subtype
Subtypes like creature types can only be on creatures. Cards that don't share a type can't have the same set of subtypes (the exception being tribal and creature of course, considered a failure). Not even MaRo seems to know the reason, something-something-the-rules-something-something. Oh, sorcery and instant also are allowed to share a subtype.
Supertypes come before that, you can put supertypes onto anything.
We (we, the rules guys) don't want Cartouche Creatures, so it's a subtype of enchantment.
I also found out that noncreature subtypes are only used if there are cards in a set caring about them.
It's not that instant and sorcery are arbitrarily allowed to share subtypes. It's that the same list of subtype names is assigned to both types individually. That's how tribal got away with, well, working. Theoretically there could be a sorcery type never used for instants, but it just wouldn't be done because the convention is to add types to both lists.
Hmm, definitely not a familiar concept for me. The idea that I had when I read the prompt was for 'Ingredient', to mimic the fantasy trope of having to add a variety of ingredients to cast spells with different effects. So, to make it a true supertype, I would want to be able to apply 'Ingredient' status to a wide variety of card types? Or would there be other factors involved?
You can think of a supertype as a mechanical template that can be applied regardless of type although both 'world' and 'legendary' are only applicable to permanents (which isn't great) and tribal is an awkward trick.
Snow is the best example of an existing supertype because its distribution isn't limited in any way.
I am enjoying how much discussion there is about this rounds challenge. I can only imagine how people will react to the final round this CCL. *evil grin*
I think there's a couple of issues here and we should have explicit ways of preventing those issues in the future:
1. It's not explicit and unambiguous which parts of the entry are meant to be judged.
2. There is some mismatch in the challenge between what is asked for and what is needed for an entry to be judged.
And here's what I think about each:
1. I feel like this is an error on the poster's part; for my own response I judged based on card 2 as recommended, but (as you can see in my feedback) the primary thrust of my judging was on the part of the entry that was actually novel and difficult, i.e. the definition of the supertype and associated rules. I would possibly have deranked the entry if the card chosen was quite bad, but at least for my judgement it was sufficient.
Still it would be preferable in future if participants were to separate the entry from any kind of like, context material, and this kind of feeds into my next thoughts, which are:
2. Reading the challenge strictly, an entry that exactly fits the requirements is just a card with a new supertype. There's no requirement for explanation or context.
We implicitly understand that if we're adding new rules, we must specify what the new rules are, but I think it'd be beneficial to be a little bit more explicit about what content is in a minimum or maximum entry when it doesn't seem obvious—and both contest leaders and participants can work together to make sure this is the case, we don't have to lay all the weight on one shoulder.
For my part I struggled with what exactly to include in my entry as well—the minimum explanation of Signature seems to have misled people to think it's a mechanic for a supplemental format like Commander, which is not specified anywhere in my entry. I ended up where I did as kind of a compromise between the minimal "card and explanation of mechanic" and "that stuff plus an anticipatory FAQ" which felt awkward and strange.
I think its fair that I could of taken the time to be very specific as to what content was an acceptable entry with a challenge like this. I think for the most its understood with a new mechanic or card type a rules entry explanation is allowed, but beyond that is poor form. There are specific reasons I wanted a single entry for the round. I'll be more explicit in the future.
As for the tardiness, I'm going to extend the deadline for critiques to the end of the day EST. Anything beyond that will be late regardless.
On kjsharp's case, I really don't think there's been any intention of getting an advantage. I, like him, thought that introducing a new supertype demands the support of some extra design: For instance, in willows entry, with just one card, I'm not really sure if the Signature supertype is meant to appear tied to specific commanders or not. Am extra card referencing another commander or anothet card referencing none would have solved that in a glance.
I feel there is a lot of this sentiment, but one thing to consider as a professional is designing towards a challenge, and not what you want the challenge to be. If you design a supertype that you feel can't be showcased well on a single card despite the challenge asking for just one, you may want to consider another idea. While showing how a mechanic across multiple cards is important, it's not what I asked for.
Also consider that it is likely that when a player is first exposed to your supertype, they are likely only going to see one card with it in a given booster. Initial impressions are important.
As designers we need to be able to showcase the best of our designs. It's one of the ways we justify new abilities and design directions: by showing how awesome they are. Several good entries don't necessarily achieve that compared to one great one.
Those are some of the reasons the challenge is the way it was as opposed to say, making it a spread of cards in the final round.
Flatline — It seems like you want to use this mechanic to build swingy, undercosted effects, which is imo not the best application.
I would've loved to create a few more cards to show other ways my supertype could be used, but we were asked to post a single card, so I did. That brings me to the topic at hand — I don't think anyone was purposely trying to gain an advantage, but posting multiple cards, along with several explanations of how the supertype would play seems a bit unfair to me. I suppose this is an unwritten rule but, people generally follow the rule that a card submitted to a contest should be able to stand on its own. I understand that this particular challenge calls for the rules associated with your supertype to be included with your entry, but again, extra example cards seems like a bit much. I'm of the mind that, even if you are explicit about which card is meant for judgment, extra example cards gain you an unfair advantage. It's not like you can unsee them. It's a bit like telling my children to unsee the Christmas presents they found in hidden in the closet.
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)
In this case, Icarii, I think you underestimated what is required to showcase a new supertype. It is telling that 3 of the 4 entries required multiple cards and significant explanation for the others to understand it (and if Flatline had alternate supplemental products in mind, then all of the entries required these things). 2 of us took that liberty (for the greater good), and Willows opted not to but in so doing no one understood his entry. I would have liked to have seen multiple cards from Willows and an explanation about what sort of product he wanted his supertype to be found in.
The CCL competition is more collaborative, and I value understanding what other people are doing and I want other people to know what I am doing. Feedback is helpful, and I think that Hemlock, Flatline, and I received real feedback yet Willows did not.
We need only look at "Host-Augment" from Unstable to recognize immediately that minimalist entries of 1 card along with a quick rules quip simply wouldn't have been sufficient in most cases. There isn't a soul alive on planet earth that understood Host-Augment upon seeing 1 or 2 cards. I also think you understated the nature of your challenge - creating a new supertype is so extraordinary (it's been done thrice in the past 20 years, two of which were in supplemental products) that the type itself is more the focus than the cards. All of us spent infinitely more time thinking about the type than the card. That should be clear from the feedback everyone gave out, and it should be clear from the cards that were produced. Mine, in particular, were stock cards intended to explain and showcase the supertype - none drew attention to themselves, and that was intentional. This is why I was surprised that you took such offense at my entry.
I think there was a disconnect between host and participants this round, and a disconnect between the host's vision of his challenge and the practical necessities that his challenge demanded. As Willows noted, participants shouldn't be blamed for that. We did the best we could, and I think all of us acted in good faith.
-------------
Also want to add a quick note about another thing that Willows said. "It is unclear what exactly it is we are supposed to be judging". This is true - in all these rounds Icarii never told us how to judge and only told us to judge. I think most people intuitively recognize that they should judge what it is that took the most effort in the round. People also want to highlight what it is that they spent the most time developing for their submissions. This is why the cards in Rounds 2 and 4 were simpler so as to highlight the new mechanic and supertype, and why most of the feedback and judgment provided in those rounds centered on those mechanics themselves. I think the CCL self-regulates in this way. It's a good feature of the CCL.
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.
I might not be able to submit until Sunday if that's okay - I think I'll be in Montreal on Friday and Saturday. Won't be difficult for me to submit on the Sunday train back to Toronto. Figured I should say something now so Willows would know that he'd likely get an extra day to design.
In this case, Icarii, I think you underestimated what is required to showcase a new supertype. It is telling that 3 of the 4 entries required multiple cards and significant explanation for the others to understand it (and if Flatline had alternate supplemental products in mind, then all of the entries required these things). 2 of us took that liberty (for the greater good), and Willows opted not to but in so doing no one understood his entry. I would have liked to have seen multiple cards from Willows and an explanation about what sort of product he wanted his supertype to be found in.
I think it's also important that you as players reflect on what you choose to do as well and likewise accept some responsibility.
I clearly asked for a single card, and given the challenge of supertypes you should consider what has functionally gone into black border magic. The supertypes that have been successful are generally easy to understand and grok in a single sentence. Legendary and Snow can both be explained quite elegantly in terms of rules. Your entry on the other hand, while it certainly had fun ideas, is an entire new format that would be hard to summerize and needed a lot of explanation. There isn't something inherently wrong with that for a supertype, except I gave you a budget of one card to show case it all.
I think that's what missing here, budget. You feel it would be easier/better to showcase a new supertype with multiple cards. I don't disagree. But that wasn't your budget. As a designer you have to cater to your budget. I deal with this as a graphic designer all the time, and it applies to my game development experiences too.
Lets say I had a commercial client who wanted to make a handout for a tradeshow they are showing at. They only have the time/budget for one sheet to be designed, even though they have a lot of information they want to represent. I know it would fit better and work easier if I could split across three pages, but they cant afford that even after I talk options through with them. So I have to work with one page, make a design that makes sense for that single page, and make sure I convey as much as possible with it.
You side stepped that hurdle by showcasing multiple cards because you came up with a cool idea and wanted to show that even if it may not of been the best fit for the challenge. There are times in the real world where you just can't do that. Make sense?
I think there was a disconnect between host and participants this round, and a disconnect between the host's vision of his challenge and the practical necessities that his challenge demanded. As Willows noted, participants shouldn't be blamed for that. We did the best we could, and I think all of us acted in good faith.
This isn't a matter of a lack of good faith. Or course I don't think anyone was "trying" to cheat or be unfair. But part of the lesson I was trying to teach was missed, and sometimes the only way to learn a lesson is by making a mistake. I think this was one of those times. While there were certainly interesting ideas this round, I think it was taken forgranted the amount of complexity that was feasible for a one card entry, and contestants had trouble coming up with answers. This was a hidden aspect of the challenge. Perhaps I should be more transparent and provide hints for details like this that I feel are important.
Also want to add a quick note about another thing that Willows said. "It is unclear what exactly it is we are supposed to be judging". This is true - in all these rounds Icarii never told us how to judge and only told us to judge.
For the CCL, it hasn't really been the job of the organizer to tell people how to judge/what to focus on. Folks are left to judge based on their own criteria, so long as the entries are in the scope of the challenge. The one role an organizer usual takes in judging is clarifying any hard pass/fail criteria for a challenge. This typically isn't needed, as players can often see for themselves that something broke the rules. But occasionally, like this time, I felt the need to say that the rules were not followed. If something treads the line, I leave it to you individuals as judges to decide on. If it crosses what I asked for, I say something/clarify.
I think most people intuitively recognize that they should judge what it is that took the most effort in the round. People also want to highlight what it is that they spent the most time developing for their submissions. This is why the cards in Rounds 2 and 4 were simpler so as to highlight the new mechanic and supertype, and why most of the feedback and judgment provided in those rounds centered on those mechanics themselves. I think the CCL self-regulates in this way. It's a good feature of the CCL.
As stated, people are allowed to judge the challenge how they like.If they found the supertype most important, that's fine. If they put a lot of emphasis on the card, that's also fine. It's not up to me to tell people what to prioritize in their scoring, just to clarify if rules had been broken.
I might not be able to submit until Sunday if that's okay - I think I'll be in Montreal on Friday and Saturday. Won't be difficult for me to submit on the Sunday train back to Toronto. Figured I should say something now so Willows would know that he'd likely get an extra day to design.
This final challenge looks rough!
That's fine, I can extend the deadline.
I realize the challenges this past month have continued to escalate in difficulty, and these last two rounds have been particularly hard. But as designers exploring entirely new card types and criteria that push you to do things that haven't been done before, don't expect them all to be successes. Have fun with it, try something that evokes a feeling/character/narrative, and learn from it.
Is Limited Range of Influence (LRI) an option set at the start of a multiplayer game? Like do players sit down and go "We're going to play this game with a LRI of 1"? Or is it something like Ascend or the Monarch where cards introduce the "mechanic" to the game? To phrase differently, do cards establish LRI or is it a game variant that supersedes cards?
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.
"Limited range of influence is an option that can be applied to most multiplayer games. It’s always used in the Emperor variant (see rule 809), and it’s often used for games involving five or more players."
Cards can mess with it just as sure as cards for variant formats can mess with the draft or command zone rules.
I too believe that everyone was acting in good faith, and stated as much in my previous post on the subject. I don't think anybody was maliciously trying to gain an advantage by posting more than what was asked for, but the bottom line is that it is an advantage to do so. I'm quoting IcariiFA's most recent post on the matter because I agree with it 100% and couldn't have worded it as eloquently without taking a lot more time than I'd like to dedicate to the matter.
In this case, Icarii, I think you underestimated what is required to showcase a new supertype. It is telling that 3 of the 4 entries required multiple cards and significant explanation for the others to understand it (and if Flatline had alternate supplemental products in mind, then all of the entries required these things). 2 of us took that liberty (for the greater good), and Willows opted not to but in so doing no one understood his entry. I would have liked to have seen multiple cards from Willows and an explanation about what sort of product he wanted his supertype to be found in.
I think it's also important that you as players reflect on what you choose to do as well and likewise accept some responsibility.
I clearly asked for a single card, and given the challenge of supertypes you should consider what has functionally gone into black border magic. The supertypes that have been successful are generally easy to understand and grok in a single sentence. Legendary and Snow can both be explained quite elegantly in terms of rules. Your entry on the other hand, while it certainly had fun ideas, is an entire new format that would be hard to summerize and needed a lot of explanation. There isn't something inherently wrong with that for a supertype, except I gave you a budget of one card to show case it all.
I think that's what missing here, budget. You feel it would be easier/better to showcase a new supertype with multiple cards. I don't disagree. But that wasn't your budget. As a designer you have to cater to your budget. I deal with this as a graphic designer all the time, and it applies to my game development experiences too.
Lets say I had a commercial client who wanted to make a handout for a tradeshow they are showing at. They only have the time/budget for one sheet to be designed, even though they have a lot of information they want to represent. I know it would fit better and work easier if I could split across three pages, but they cant afford that even after I talk options through with them. So I have to work with one page, make a design that makes sense for that single page, and make sure I convey as much as possible with it.
You side stepped that hurdle by showcasing multiple cards because you came up with a cool idea and wanted to show that even if it may not of been the best fit for the challenge. There are times in the real world where you just can't do that. Make sense?
I think there was a disconnect between host and participants this round, and a disconnect between the host's vision of his challenge and the practical necessities that his challenge demanded. As Willows noted, participants shouldn't be blamed for that. We did the best we could, and I think all of us acted in good faith.
This isn't a matter of a lack of good faith. Or course I don't think anyone was "trying" to cheat or be unfair. But part of the lesson I was trying to teach was missed, and sometimes the only way to learn a lesson is by making a mistake. I think this was one of those times. While there were certainly interesting ideas this round, I think it was taken forgranted the amount of complexity that was feasible for a one card entry, and contestants had trouble coming up with answers. This was a hidden aspect of the challenge. Perhaps I should be more transparent and provide hints for details like this that I feel are important.
Also want to add a quick note about another thing that Willows said. "It is unclear what exactly it is we are supposed to be judging". This is true - in all these rounds Icarii never told us how to judge and only told us to judge.
For the CCL, it hasn't really been the job of the organizer to tell people how to judge/what to focus on. Folks are left to judge based on their own criteria, so long as the entries are in the scope of the challenge. The one role an organizer usual takes in judging is clarifying any hard pass/fail criteria for a challenge. This typically isn't needed, as players can often see for themselves that something broke the rules. But occasionally, like this time, I felt the need to say that the rules were not followed. If something treads the line, I leave it to you individuals as judges to decide on. If it crosses what I asked for, I say something/clarify.
I think most people intuitively recognize that they should judge what it is that took the most effort in the round. People also want to highlight what it is that they spent the most time developing for their submissions. This is why the cards in Rounds 2 and 4 were simpler so as to highlight the new mechanic and supertype, and why most of the feedback and judgment provided in those rounds centered on those mechanics themselves. I think the CCL self-regulates in this way. It's a good feature of the CCL.
As stated, people are allowed to judge the challenge how they like.If they found the supertype most important, that's fine. If they put a lot of emphasis on the card, that's also fine. It's not up to me to tell people what to prioritize in their scoring, just to clarify if rules had been broken.
Edit: I plan to post a few thoughts about my round 3 supertype entry (event) later tonight. TBH, a lot of my thought process revolved around trying display something as complicated as new supertype using only one card and a couple of lines of rules text. That's the main reason I'm a bit frustrated with the way things turned out. To me, half of the contestants skipped 90% of the challenge.
(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 wouldn't mind hosting next month, although I feel inundated because I'm in both finals this go around. Maybe I should volunteer for March instead, or just volunteer to judge the MCC in February. I was under the impression that IcariiFA was going to host the CCL next month, but I guess I'm misremembering things since void said he was looking for a February host.
I had decided to wait to hear the test results before commiting to running anything. I'm free to do the CCL, but if kjsharp would like to run it, be my guest.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Subtypes like creature types can only be on creatures. Cards that don't share a type can't have the same set of subtypes (the exception being tribal and creature of course, considered a failure). Not even MaRo seems to know the reason, something-something-the-rules-something-something. Oh, sorcery and instant also are allowed to share a subtype.
Supertypes come before that, you can put supertypes onto anything.
We (we, the rules guys) don't want Cartouche Creatures, so it's a subtype of enchantment.
I also found out that noncreature subtypes are only used if there are cards in a set caring about them.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
And basic only on lands, and world only on enchantments.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
Snow is the best example of an existing supertype because its distribution isn't limited in any way.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
I think there's a couple of issues here and we should have explicit ways of preventing those issues in the future:
1. It's not explicit and unambiguous which parts of the entry are meant to be judged.
2. There is some mismatch in the challenge between what is asked for and what is needed for an entry to be judged.
And here's what I think about each:
1. I feel like this is an error on the poster's part; for my own response I judged based on card 2 as recommended, but (as you can see in my feedback) the primary thrust of my judging was on the part of the entry that was actually novel and difficult, i.e. the definition of the supertype and associated rules. I would possibly have deranked the entry if the card chosen was quite bad, but at least for my judgement it was sufficient.
Still it would be preferable in future if participants were to separate the entry from any kind of like, context material, and this kind of feeds into my next thoughts, which are:
2. Reading the challenge strictly, an entry that exactly fits the requirements is just a card with a new supertype. There's no requirement for explanation or context.
We implicitly understand that if we're adding new rules, we must specify what the new rules are, but I think it'd be beneficial to be a little bit more explicit about what content is in a minimum or maximum entry when it doesn't seem obvious—and both contest leaders and participants can work together to make sure this is the case, we don't have to lay all the weight on one shoulder.
For my part I struggled with what exactly to include in my entry as well—the minimum explanation of Signature seems to have misled people to think it's a mechanic for a supplemental format like Commander, which is not specified anywhere in my entry. I ended up where I did as kind of a compromise between the minimal "card and explanation of mechanic" and "that stuff plus an anticipatory FAQ" which felt awkward and strange.
As for the tardiness, I'm going to extend the deadline for critiques to the end of the day EST. Anything beyond that will be late regardless.
edit----------
I feel there is a lot of this sentiment, but one thing to consider as a professional is designing towards a challenge, and not what you want the challenge to be. If you design a supertype that you feel can't be showcased well on a single card despite the challenge asking for just one, you may want to consider another idea. While showing how a mechanic across multiple cards is important, it's not what I asked for.
Also consider that it is likely that when a player is first exposed to your supertype, they are likely only going to see one card with it in a given booster. Initial impressions are important.
As designers we need to be able to showcase the best of our designs. It's one of the ways we justify new abilities and design directions: by showing how awesome they are. Several good entries don't necessarily achieve that compared to one great one.
Those are some of the reasons the challenge is the way it was as opposed to say, making it a spread of cards in the final round.
Happy new year!
The CCL competition is more collaborative, and I value understanding what other people are doing and I want other people to know what I am doing. Feedback is helpful, and I think that Hemlock, Flatline, and I received real feedback yet Willows did not.
We need only look at "Host-Augment" from Unstable to recognize immediately that minimalist entries of 1 card along with a quick rules quip simply wouldn't have been sufficient in most cases. There isn't a soul alive on planet earth that understood Host-Augment upon seeing 1 or 2 cards. I also think you understated the nature of your challenge - creating a new supertype is so extraordinary (it's been done thrice in the past 20 years, two of which were in supplemental products) that the type itself is more the focus than the cards. All of us spent infinitely more time thinking about the type than the card. That should be clear from the feedback everyone gave out, and it should be clear from the cards that were produced. Mine, in particular, were stock cards intended to explain and showcase the supertype - none drew attention to themselves, and that was intentional. This is why I was surprised that you took such offense at my entry.
I think there was a disconnect between host and participants this round, and a disconnect between the host's vision of his challenge and the practical necessities that his challenge demanded. As Willows noted, participants shouldn't be blamed for that. We did the best we could, and I think all of us acted in good faith.
-------------
Also want to add a quick note about another thing that Willows said. "It is unclear what exactly it is we are supposed to be judging". This is true - in all these rounds Icarii never told us how to judge and only told us to judge. I think most people intuitively recognize that they should judge what it is that took the most effort in the round. People also want to highlight what it is that they spent the most time developing for their submissions. This is why the cards in Rounds 2 and 4 were simpler so as to highlight the new mechanic and supertype, and why most of the feedback and judgment provided in those rounds centered on those mechanics themselves. I think the CCL self-regulates in this way. It's a good feature of the CCL.
This final challenge looks rough!
I clearly asked for a single card, and given the challenge of supertypes you should consider what has functionally gone into black border magic. The supertypes that have been successful are generally easy to understand and grok in a single sentence. Legendary and Snow can both be explained quite elegantly in terms of rules. Your entry on the other hand, while it certainly had fun ideas, is an entire new format that would be hard to summerize and needed a lot of explanation. There isn't something inherently wrong with that for a supertype, except I gave you a budget of one card to show case it all.
I think that's what missing here, budget. You feel it would be easier/better to showcase a new supertype with multiple cards. I don't disagree. But that wasn't your budget. As a designer you have to cater to your budget. I deal with this as a graphic designer all the time, and it applies to my game development experiences too.
Lets say I had a commercial client who wanted to make a handout for a tradeshow they are showing at. They only have the time/budget for one sheet to be designed, even though they have a lot of information they want to represent. I know it would fit better and work easier if I could split across three pages, but they cant afford that even after I talk options through with them. So I have to work with one page, make a design that makes sense for that single page, and make sure I convey as much as possible with it.
You side stepped that hurdle by showcasing multiple cards because you came up with a cool idea and wanted to show that even if it may not of been the best fit for the challenge. There are times in the real world where you just can't do that. Make sense?
This isn't a matter of a lack of good faith. Or course I don't think anyone was "trying" to cheat or be unfair. But part of the lesson I was trying to teach was missed, and sometimes the only way to learn a lesson is by making a mistake. I think this was one of those times. While there were certainly interesting ideas this round, I think it was taken forgranted the amount of complexity that was feasible for a one card entry, and contestants had trouble coming up with answers. This was a hidden aspect of the challenge. Perhaps I should be more transparent and provide hints for details like this that I feel are important.
For the CCL, it hasn't really been the job of the organizer to tell people how to judge/what to focus on. Folks are left to judge based on their own criteria, so long as the entries are in the scope of the challenge. The one role an organizer usual takes in judging is clarifying any hard pass/fail criteria for a challenge. This typically isn't needed, as players can often see for themselves that something broke the rules. But occasionally, like this time, I felt the need to say that the rules were not followed. If something treads the line, I leave it to you individuals as judges to decide on. If it crosses what I asked for, I say something/clarify. As stated, people are allowed to judge the challenge how they like.If they found the supertype most important, that's fine. If they put a lot of emphasis on the card, that's also fine. It's not up to me to tell people what to prioritize in their scoring, just to clarify if rules had been broken.
That's fine, I can extend the deadline.
I realize the challenges this past month have continued to escalate in difficulty, and these last two rounds have been particularly hard. But as designers exploring entirely new card types and criteria that push you to do things that haven't been done before, don't expect them all to be successes. Have fun with it, try something that evokes a feeling/character/narrative, and learn from it.
Cards can mess with it just as sure as cards for variant formats can mess with the draft or command zone rules.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
Edit: I plan to post a few thoughts about my round 3 supertype entry (event) later tonight. TBH, a lot of my thought process revolved around trying display something as complicated as new supertype using only one card and a couple of lines of rules text. That's the main reason I'm a bit frustrated with the way things turned out. To me, half of the contestants skipped 90% of the challenge.