Let's say I want to submit ... Mario from Nintendo.
1) The 'new creature type' never used before can be used with existing creature type ? In short, does saying that Mario is an 'Human Plumber' satisfy the challenge ?
"Plumber" is a novel type, so that satisfies the challenge. Whether the type is used alongside existing types or not doesn't matter.
2) Is the 'new creature type' must be in the creature type of the card ?
If I say my Mario is just 'Human' and give it the ability '1: Destroy target Goombas creature.' Does that satisfy the challenge ?
Not strictly speaking what I was looking for, but if it mentions a new type, I'll accept it - that's out of the box thinking for you. This would satisfy the challenge.
and
3) Can I 'combo' existing creature type to create a new one ? Goat and Advisor are both creature type from Magic, but as far as I know, there never was a 'Goat Advisor'. If I create a Goat Advisor, does that satisfy the challenge ?
Mistform Ultimus is displeased. No, one of the creature types must never have been printed on any Magic card, that is, you have to have made it up.
YOUR NEW DEADLINE IS "Wednesday, December 11th, 11:59 AM EST"
YOUR CRITIQUE DEADLINE WILL NOT BE EXTENDED
-
TO EVERYONE WHO HAS ALREADY ENTERED THEIR CRITIQUES:
I WOULD GREATLY APPRECIATE IF YOU EDITED YOUR JUDGEMENTS AS MORE ENTRIES CAME IN
-
I'll be honest you can't have the critique and entry deadline at the same time. It's just silly. If you extend one you should the other. How about the 14th December for the new critique deadline.
The entry deadline is at 11:59 AM, and the critique deadline is at 11:59 PM. That's 12 hours in between, which should be sufficient time, at least for a Top 3.
Given that a team got disqualified from this CCL because no-one judged them in the final round, would it be a good idea to divide a person's total score by the amount of top 3s their team received during the prelim rounds when determining the top 8? If everyone actually does their critiquing then it changes nothing, and it stops people getting disqualified from the CCL for not getting judged.
Alternatively, taking the top 1 or 2 from each team and then filling any remaining slots from the top of the list. That way also avoids the issue we had this month.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Official DCI Rules Advisor
Level 1 Judge
[box][box][size=3][b]CARDNAME[/b][/size] [float=right][mana]MANACOST[/mana][/float][/box]
[box][b]TYPE — SUBTYPE [float=right][color="RARITYCOLOUR"]{RARITY}[/color][/b][/float][/box][box]RULES TEXT
[i]FLAVOUR TEXT[/i][/box][float=right][box=50][b][SIZE="3"]P/T[/SIZE][/b][/box][/float][/box]
Typically we advance the top 2 from each of the four teams since you are being judged against the other people on your team. I don't know why it would work any differently this month. No crits for a team is pretty unfortunate though, if needed I will provide a critique.
A downturn in participation is somewhat to be expected and I believe it is a good idea not to structure the CCL such that there are limits on the participation. Having more people to start just gives you better odds that you will have enough people on teams by Round 3 to prevent this sort of situation.
No worries. I'm no mathematician, but I believe that the standard CCL scoring makes it so that people can have the same number of raw Top 3 points, but if they are on different teams and had different numbers of critiques they would end up with different adjusted scores. I guess this is obvious - if one team only had one critique every round and the same person got 1st every time, they should end up with 300 points, while if someone on another team got a single 1st place every round but there were 6 critiques for their team, they would have a lot lower score.
I believe Raikou Rider from Broken should also advance unless you have some reason to break that tie. If you run group scoring in the next round, you can just cut to the Top 4.
I posted a critique for Team Insane just so they can get some opinions of their cards. I don't think it changes the standings on their team.
Typically we advance the top 2 from each of the four teams since you are being judged against the other people on your team. I don't know why it would work any differently this month. No crits for a team is pretty unfortunate though, if needed I will provide a critique.
A downturn in participation is somewhat to be expected and I believe it is a good idea not to structure the CCL such that there are limits on the participation. Having more people to start just gives you better odds that you will have enough people on teams by Round 3 to prevent this sort of situation.
Right, right, I just thought that since their scores were so high that everyone on Team Insane was nudged out, which I failed to explain. Things make sense to me now.
That's been a common complaint lately. I think everyone gets the 3pts for 1st, 2pts for 2nd, 1pt for 3rd bit. Put simply, we just add in points for providing critiques/Top 3, then make that a percentage of the total points available for the round. The intention was to give every round equal weight, since there were often fewer judges in the later rounds.
...does the math actually do that? I think the advantage of the current system is that it lets people catch up better. Imagine a situation like this.
Round 1: 6 critiques for this team. Player A gets 6 1st place, Player B gets 6 3rd place. Both provide critiques and Top 3 for +2 bonus.
A: 20 raw, 111 adjusted. B: 8 raw, 40 adjusted.
Round 2: 4 critiques for this team. A and B each get two 1st and two 3rd places, and get the bonus points.
A: 20+10=30 raw, 111+83=194 adjusted. B: 8+10=18 raw, 40+83=123 adjusted.
Round 3: Only 2 critiques for the team this round. It is impossible for B to catch A on raw points, since there would be a max of 8. But say B got both 1st places and the bonus, and A got two 3rd places and the bonus.
A: 30+4=34 raw, 194+50=244 adjusted. B: 18+8=26 raw, 123+133=256 adjusted.
B ends up beating A in adjusted score since he did well when there were fewer critiques. I think that was the original intention of this system, since it would theoretically encourage people to stay in the contest since they could still come from behind. If the scoring is discouraging hosts and players because it is difficult to understand, though, we may need to rethink that.
I could host a poll or something but I don't know if that would do much good.
I did have one thought for an alternative method, which would be that each player is given 10 critique points at the end of the round, and they can distribute them as they like among all the cards, maybe with a cap of 3 for any one player. So I could say "I really liked this card, 3 pts, these two were my next favorites, 2 pts each, and here are three more that had interesting ideas, 1 pt each (for example)." Then you can just total up the points given to each player.
The disadvantages are that each player would need to look over all the cards, and that cards which don't get many or any points would not get much feedback.
Having just two teams is another possibility, not sure if that would be too many cards for people to critique effectively.
"Plumber" is a novel type, so that satisfies the challenge. Whether the type is used alongside existing types or not doesn't matter.
Not strictly speaking what I was looking for, but if it mentions a new type, I'll accept it - that's out of the box thinking for you. This would satisfy the challenge.
Mistform Ultimus is displeased. No, one of the creature types must never have been printed on any Magic card, that is, you have to have made it up.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
Best Host 2013
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
edit: nevermind, I figured it out.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
BGStandard Green AggroGB
UWRGModern Saheeli CobraGRWU
UBRGLegacy StormGRBU
Wizards Certified Rules Advisor
I don't think you need to worry about that degree of nitpicking this week.
I for one read right through the type-o. Great cards.
I'll be honest you can't have the critique and entry deadline at the same time. It's just silly. If you extend one you should the other. How about the 14th December for the new critique deadline.
Good call.
Emille, Seven-Sting Dancer Shalin Nariya
Alternatively, taking the top 1 or 2 from each team and then filling any remaining slots from the top of the list. That way also avoids the issue we had this month.
Level 1 Judge
A downturn in participation is somewhat to be expected and I believe it is a good idea not to structure the CCL such that there are limits on the participation. Having more people to start just gives you better odds that you will have enough people on teams by Round 3 to prevent this sort of situation.
I believe Raikou Rider from Broken should also advance unless you have some reason to break that tie. If you run group scoring in the next round, you can just cut to the Top 4.
I posted a critique for Team Insane just so they can get some opinions of their cards. I don't think it changes the standings on their team.
Right, right, I just thought that since their scores were so high that everyone on Team Insane was nudged out, which I failed to explain. Things make sense to me now.
Plus I don't understand the scoring system at all.
Emille, Seven-Sting Dancer Shalin Nariya
...does the math actually do that? I think the advantage of the current system is that it lets people catch up better. Imagine a situation like this.
Round 1: 6 critiques for this team. Player A gets 6 1st place, Player B gets 6 3rd place. Both provide critiques and Top 3 for +2 bonus.
A: 20 raw, 111 adjusted. B: 8 raw, 40 adjusted.
Round 2: 4 critiques for this team. A and B each get two 1st and two 3rd places, and get the bonus points.
A: 20+10=30 raw, 111+83=194 adjusted. B: 8+10=18 raw, 40+83=123 adjusted.
Round 3: Only 2 critiques for the team this round. It is impossible for B to catch A on raw points, since there would be a max of 8. But say B got both 1st places and the bonus, and A got two 3rd places and the bonus.
A: 30+4=34 raw, 194+50=244 adjusted. B: 18+8=26 raw, 123+133=256 adjusted.
B ends up beating A in adjusted score since he did well when there were fewer critiques. I think that was the original intention of this system, since it would theoretically encourage people to stay in the contest since they could still come from behind. If the scoring is discouraging hosts and players because it is difficult to understand, though, we may need to rethink that.
I could host a poll or something but I don't know if that would do much good.
I did have one thought for an alternative method, which would be that each player is given 10 critique points at the end of the round, and they can distribute them as they like among all the cards, maybe with a cap of 3 for any one player. So I could say "I really liked this card, 3 pts, these two were my next favorites, 2 pts each, and here are three more that had interesting ideas, 1 pt each (for example)." Then you can just total up the points given to each player.
The disadvantages are that each player would need to look over all the cards, and that cards which don't get many or any points would not get much feedback.
Having just two teams is another possibility, not sure if that would be too many cards for people to critique effectively.
BGStandard Green AggroGB
UWRGModern Saheeli CobraGRWU
UBRGLegacy StormGRBU
Wizards Certified Rules Advisor