"If you did not enter round 1, choose a monocolored card from a modern-legal set to use as a baseline instead. Be sure to state what card you've chosen."
Hmm, no one knows? Well, I'm flying tomorrow, but will look at everything on Thursday.
I can't say for sure, but I would assume the poll closes the same day August round 2 ends, so 8/15. Although it might end the day before that so that Rocco has time to include voting in the scores for rounds 1 & 2.
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)
@void Crap you're right about the Augury Adept. Hybrid should have made me suspicious right out, I should have checked if maro said anything on it. My card was actually white at first (and I had a neat idea for a UW vertical) but I thought people might mistake that as another horizontal cycle entry. Ah well, Rocco I'm guessing it's too late to edit cards that drastically?
I still contend the staff is mono blue for all intents and purposes, at least the charms could trigger off opponent spells. You wouldn't make an artifact with "sac a forest or green permanent: deal 3 damage to target creature or player".
@void Crap you're right about the Augury Adept. Hybrid should have made me suspicious right out, I should have checked if maro said anything on it. My card was actually white at first (and I had a neat idea for a UW vertical) but I thought people might mistake that as another horizontal cycle entry. Ah well, Rocco I'm guessing it's too late to edit cards that drastically?
Results for Rounds 1 & 2 may be delayed until tomorrow evening. I'm experiencing a sudden medical anomaly. I don't believe it's dangerous, but I can't concentrate on scoring at all right now.
Results for Rounds 1 & 2 may be delayed until tomorrow evening. I'm experiencing a sudden medical anomaly. I don't believe it's dangerous, but I can't concentrate on scoring at all right now.
Apologies.
Take care of yourself, that comes first. I hope you'll get well as soon as possible.
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.)
Thank you. It was a freak dizzy spell accompanied by nausea. Probably related to stress, allergies, and sleep deprivation. It was all I could do to stumble into bed. Feeling totally normal today, so expect results and Round 3 in about 3-4 hours.
(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)
Yeah I can only blame myself for gaining no points in R2, that was a really dumb error. Well ok I'll blame the designer of Augury Adept for not knowing their hybrid theory, and Maro for not immediately smacking him/her over the head and telling them to start over.
That said, are you accounting for the fact that not everyone had all six people judging them? In R1 I had two judges with a no show, and poor netn10 only had three people judge his card!
Yeah I can only blame myself for gaining no points in R2, that was a really dumb error. Well ok I'll blame the designer of Augury Adept for not knowing their hybrid theory, and Maro for not immediately smacking him/her over the head and telling them to start over.
That said, are you accounting for the fact that not everyone had all six people judging them? In R1 I had two judges with a no show, and poor netn10 only had three people judge his card!
Yes, that's accounted for. The formula is essentially just "Total points divided by possible points," And then I express it as a percentage for easier parsing.
PS. The designers with the fewest judges across both rounds (who entered both rounds) each had the potential for 24 total points (not counting bonus points). There were six such designers, and you weren't one of them (You had 27 possible points). The most points possible for an entrant was 30, and there were three such cases. The spread wasn't really that wide, but it was definitely accounted for.
On the other hand, I'm getting a little tired of being boxed in with these challenges. If your round one wasn't ideal, it's starting to become a significant disadvantage since every challenge so far requires referencing it. If the whole month is just going to be fleshing out the same cycles, it is both predictable and extremely constricting in a way that is pretty unfun, as it doesn't push creativity or provide much opportunity to fix mistakes. Creating a proper, recognizable vertical or horizontal cycle after already presenting half of either cycle kind hard locks what you can do.
It's also a little difficult to structure challenges this way in the CCL, as the first two preliminary rounds (in theory) aren't mandatory to participant in both. Having all the parts from those rounds continue forward in this way can create issues.
I think the overall structure to what you're doing might fit the MCC better, since the overall structure is mandatory step after step, but should also offer more room to maneuver and reinvent what you're doing throughout the month. If you want decisions to matter from round to round, something more thematic like what void_nothing did this July plays a lot more fun since your decisions restrict what you can pick from in the future but didn't force you to use the same mechanic over and over if it was received with mixed reviews.
Also lord help Sub_Silencio if the final challenge is to design the OTHER cycle, that's gonna be a rough vertical cycle.
Yeah - I was really scared when I'd first read the challenge. I thought I'd have to design both cycles.
I love planeswalker designs, but I think they suffer disproportionately in critiques due to how rare planeswalkers have to be in limited, without the person doing the critiquing necessarily realizing the designs can be included in stuff like the pre-constructed Standard walker decks or in Commander sets and still be used in constructed. While I get that draft/limited is a big portion of Magic, my philosophy is that there is something to be said for cards that can only work a little bit outside of the conventional formats.
On the other hand, I'm getting a little tired of being boxed in with these challenges. If your round one wasn't ideal, it's starting to become a significant disadvantage since every challenge so far requires referencing it. If the whole month is just going to be fleshing out the same cycles, it is both predictable and extremely constricting in a way that is pretty unfun, as it doesn't push creativity or provide much opportunity to fix mistakes. Creating a proper, recognizable vertical or horizontal cycle after already presenting half of either cycle kind hard locks what you can do.
It's also a little difficult to structure challenges this way in the CCL, as the first two preliminary rounds (in theory) aren't mandatory to participant in both. Having all the parts from those rounds continue forward in this way can create issues.
I think the overall structure to what you're doing might fit the MCC better, since the overall structure is mandatory step after step, but should also offer more room to maneuver and reinvent what you're doing throughout the month. If you want decisions to matter from round to round, something more thematic like what void_nothing did this July plays a lot more fun since your decisions restrict what you can pick from in the future but didn't force you to use the same mechanic over and over if it was received with mixed reviews.
Yeah - I was really scared when I'd first read the challenge. I thought I'd have to design both cycles.
Let it be known that this is the last round that makes direct callbacks to previous designs.
Before posting Round 3, I had the the benefit of knowing that all qualifying designers submitted entries for both of the first 2 rounds. If that hadn't been the case, this round's challenge wouldn't have been the same.
I think we used to have more of these callback rounds. Maybe that was another forum tho, not sure. The general consensus back then was that they are problematic, but fun every now and then. I think it's nice to have such a format again after quite some time since the last. I'm having fun.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Multiple instances of lifelink on the same creature are redundant.
Multiple instances of lifelink on the same creature are redundant.
Multiple instances of lifelink on the same creature are redundant.
—Eli Shiffrin, Rules Manager, on a design stacking lifelink instances
I'm thinking that, as a general palliative to the boxed-in thing, the two open rounds should not be interdependent usually (or if they are, it should be clearly stated from Round 1), to facilitate drop-in participation.
Personally I do like having challenges that create constraints for subsequent challenges. It is helpful for the concepting stage and it also helps revent the cards designed from being overly similar. I'm not entirely sure whether the current system for presenting these is optimal, however. Since most CCL hosts plan out their challenges in advance, maybe a carryover challenge can specify what parts of the submitted card will have consequences for subsequent challenges? Like:
Challenge: Design a noncreature card that can be a commander. Later: Your cards for upcoming rounds must be playable in a Commander deck using your card for this round as commander.
I can host September if people are okay with a new person doing it. I may not have like the fancy CCL banners and stuff, but I am happy to give it a whirl.
Also if someone could explain to me how to calculate scores (since that is something that while I kind of understand, I'd hate to mess up), that would be great!
I advise you use the scoring system called out in the OP of this thread. I've quoted it below for your convenience. There have been few changes since the scoring system I'm quoting has been updated. They are as follows: People still receive a bonus point for submitting critiques, but a top 3 is now mandatory if you hope to receive any points for that round. Also, 2 bonus points are now being rewarded in the first round if you vote in the previous month's poll. At least I think these changes are still being used. Honestly, I'm not exactly sure what was settled on as far as crits and a top 3 are concerned. Are people still getting a bonus point for submitting a top 3 even though it is now considered mandatory? If not, are we now giving out 2 bonus pts for submitting crits, or are we still only awarding 1? I know you probably can't answer these questions Sub_Silentio, but I'm hoping someone that can will read this and answer them for both of us. Hope this helps.
Prior to Top 8, players have a chance of getting a total of 100 points toward their score each Scoring Round. Scores for each Round are determined by the following equation:
Total points of Player A in round N = 100 * X/Y, where:
X = Total number of Scoring Points (Judge Points + Additional Points from Top 3 & Critiques)
Y = Total number of Possible Points (3 * Number of Judges + Additional Points)
3 points are given for a First Place Top 3 finish, 2 points for a Second Place, and 1 point for a Third Place. 1 additional point is awarded if a Top 3 is submitted. 1 additional point is awarded if Critiques are given for all entries to be judged.
This way the grading is more streamlined in the fact that all rounds prior to Top 8 are graded equally, and there is no handicap for any team that has fewer judges.
Each player accumulates points from each Scoring Round until the end of Round 3.
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)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
"If you did not enter round 1, choose a monocolored card from a modern-legal set to use as a baseline instead. Be sure to state what card you've chosen."
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
I still contend the staff is mono blue for all intents and purposes, at least the charms could trigger off opponent spells. You wouldn't make an artifact with "sac a forest or green permanent: deal 3 damage to target creature or player".
Indeed. Sorry about that. Best of luck, anyhow.
Apologies.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
Come at me, bros! I'm going for the turkey!
Take care of yourself, that comes first. I hope you'll get well as soon as possible.
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.)
That said, are you accounting for the fact that not everyone had all six people judging them? In R1 I had two judges with a no show, and poor netn10 only had three people judge his card!
Yes, that's accounted for. The formula is essentially just "Total points divided by possible points," And then I express it as a percentage for easier parsing.
PS. The designers with the fewest judges across both rounds (who entered both rounds) each had the potential for 24 total points (not counting bonus points). There were six such designers, and you weren't one of them (You had 27 possible points). The most points possible for an entrant was 30, and there were three such cases. The spread wasn't really that wide, but it was definitely accounted for.
Also lord help Sub_Silencio if the final challenge is to design the OTHER cycle, that's gonna be a rough vertical cycle.
It's also a little difficult to structure challenges this way in the CCL, as the first two preliminary rounds (in theory) aren't mandatory to participant in both. Having all the parts from those rounds continue forward in this way can create issues.
I think the overall structure to what you're doing might fit the MCC better, since the overall structure is mandatory step after step, but should also offer more room to maneuver and reinvent what you're doing throughout the month. If you want decisions to matter from round to round, something more thematic like what void_nothing did this July plays a lot more fun since your decisions restrict what you can pick from in the future but didn't force you to use the same mechanic over and over if it was received with mixed reviews.
Yeah - I was really scared when I'd first read the challenge. I thought I'd have to design both cycles.
I love planeswalker designs, but I think they suffer disproportionately in critiques due to how rare planeswalkers have to be in limited, without the person doing the critiquing necessarily realizing the designs can be included in stuff like the pre-constructed Standard walker decks or in Commander sets and still be used in constructed. While I get that draft/limited is a big portion of Magic, my philosophy is that there is something to be said for cards that can only work a little bit outside of the conventional formats.
Let it be known that this is the last round that makes direct callbacks to previous designs.
Before posting Round 3, I had the the benefit of knowing that all qualifying designers submitted entries for both of the first 2 rounds. If that hadn't been the case, this round's challenge wouldn't have been the same.
Multiple instances of lifelink on the same creature are redundant.
Multiple instances of lifelink on the same creature are redundant.
—Eli Shiffrin, Rules Manager, on a design stacking lifelink instances
Personally I do like having challenges that create constraints for subsequent challenges. It is helpful for the concepting stage and it also helps revent the cards designed from being overly similar. I'm not entirely sure whether the current system for presenting these is optimal, however. Since most CCL hosts plan out their challenges in advance, maybe a carryover challenge can specify what parts of the submitted card will have consequences for subsequent challenges? Like:
Challenge: Design a noncreature card that can be a commander.
Later: Your cards for upcoming rounds must be playable in a Commander deck using your card for this round as commander.
Also if someone could explain to me how to calculate scores (since that is something that while I kind of understand, I'd hate to mess up), that would be great!
Otherwise I am happy to defer.