The commander sets are rather looser with the color pie, and Maro has not missed an opportunity to yell about Chaos Warp or Song of the Dyrads. I'd say we're about Maro strictness on color pie, which is in fact more conservative than actual print.
Which, for example, enables them to freely make cards that intentionally Appeal to only one psychographic.
I do feel the Appeal category captures this poorly. A card that really really appeals to only one psychographic is better than a card that two-three psychographics like but aren't wild about, imo. Maybe we should award two points for "This psychographic just loves this card"?
The commander sets are rather looser with the color pie, and Maro has not missed an opportunity to yell about Chaos Warp or Song of the Dyrads. I'd say we're about Maro strictness on color pie, which is in fact more conservative than actual print.
Which, for example, enables them to freely make cards that intentionally Appeal to only one psychographic.
I do feel the Appeal category captures this poorly. A card that really really appeals to only one psychographic is better than a card that two-three psychographics like but aren't wild about, imo. Maybe we should award two points for "This psychographic just loves this card"?
That man said yesterday via blogatog:
Q: Is the design team for a Commander Set subjected to the restrictions of the Color Pie as much as the design team for a regular expansion set?
A: Yes. The color pie is the same for all formats.
Though the facts just are, some Commander cards are weird in terms of color pie restrictions.
I've always disagreed with how many of the judges for the MCC score Potential. That's why I've taken the freedom to score it my own way and if you take a look at the last round, no one scored less than 2.5 points. Mostly because the cards where really well done, the round before that it dropped lower than that, but I gave points for cards being Angels/supporting Angels for example, because people love Angels. If there's one demographic (not just the classic 3, also commander crowd, people liking randomness, casuals, Dragon/Angel enthusiasts, etc.) that truly will be all over the card, it deserves at least 2.5/3 points, because what more can you ask for? The last 0.5 points will be reserved for the cards that are loved by more than one crowd, but that often applies anyways.
I used to deduct points if a card stepped on other demographic's toes too much, but I'm uncertain about that now.
Aside from that I've moved to call the demographics Timmy/Tammy, Johnny/Jenny and Spike, because I like that idea of inclusiveness.
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 glad some others feel the same way I do about this. I've been rather annoyed by what I've felt to be an extreme conservatism regarding card design here. So many real, actual cards that Wizards prints would be panned here - The Scarab God (drawing cards in Red), The Locust God (requiring Red mana to loot), the new Deeproot Champion (green caring about noncreature spells), Veteran Motorist(Scrying more than one in Boros). The list goes on and on, and I haven't even discussed cards that would be deemed too powerful.
I don't want to ramble on too much, so I will limit my post to two points.
(1) This forum worships the words of MaRo as if he were Jesus Christ. MaRo is most definitely on the conservative end of Magic card design, but we need to appreciate the fact that he is overseeing an institution in a way. Most leaders of institutions view themselves as caretakers and guardians. This is true in families. This is true in churches. This is true in government. It's human nature, and indeed that role is valuable for an institution and for Magic design. That guardian/protector instinct helps prevent things from going too far. But we have to realize that good Magic card design requires that people push the boundaries. It requires that some card designers design mechanics like Embalm, a mechanic that would have been panned on this forum for being in Blue. It is healthy and necessary for a card design team to have members that don't mind pushing the boundaries in the search for novel gameplay experience and other members who are more concerned about its dangers. That creates a healthy team dynamic, with many pushes and pulls. I wish that this forum would appreciate all the Magic designers who are not MaRo and the gospel of his Blogatog. To share MaRo's conservative guardianship role is not our cross to bear.
(2) We too often consider cards in the abstract rather than seeing them as fitting into a certain limited environment and story environment. In a word, we judge cards solely as if they came to us in Commander products. The fact of the matter is that the majority of Magic cards are created to support and build a created world and a created Limited/Standard environment. Earlier this year MaRo himself discussed how what constitutes a color pie violation is world and set dependent - the difference between "bend" and "break" has as much to do with the limited world as it does with mechanics. Yet this forum only considers the mechanics (which tends to get my card designs into trouble here). The card in question was Hour of Eternity, which I admit is the only card in the past 2-3 years that I still don't like from the color pie perspective. MaRo was adamant that in the world of Hour of Devastation, that card is not a color pie break in the world of Amonkhet, although in most worlds it would be.
---------------
I also agree with those who think that the Appeal category makes no sense. Good design doesn't appeal to everyone; it appeals to someone. That's one of MaRo's and Sam Stoddard's most oft-sung refrains, and I think they are right. I understand why the "Appeal" category was set up that way - a desire to reduce the humane task of aesthetic judgment to an objective social science. In my opinion, endeavors of that sort don't end well, whether it be in Olympic figure skating (I find figure skating unwatchable now whereas before the "objectivity rules" changes it was my favorite olympic sport) or in academia.
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 could go for getting rid of the Appeal category, or just finding a different metric. Also, I should not have tried to do the impossible. Cipher, you have wrecked many more a custom designed than me.
@LnGrrR I liked your card at first glance (lord knows how it'd survive my nitpicking), but you also got paired against the strongest submission so I'm not sure my judgement would have helped you!
I'd be down for slicing a point off Appeal and rephrasing it to something like "Does does this strongly appeal to some sizable group?" void's suggestion isn't bad either.
Let's not get hasty and axe the whole category! I did give only 1 point to someone in one of the rounds as well. You shouldn't be allowed to get away with making a card that's not going to appeal to anyone. It's kinda like quality. You're expected to put some effort into that and most people get almost full points every time, but it's also a filter for people who don't care enough to deliver quality cards. edit: In terms of appeal, it's filtering people who didn't take a moment to step back and ask themselves "Sure, this fulfills the task, but is it actually a good card?"
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'd be down for slicing a point off Appeal and rephrasing it to something like "Does does this strongly appeal to some sizable group?" void's suggestion isn't bad either.
I disagree.
As I've defended multiple times on this forums the idea behind the appeal section is, while a card that appeals to one psychographic is good a card that appeals to multiple psychographics is better. Making it so a player would get full points to appeal for just pleasing one psychographic is inaccurate to what the strongest designs do.
That's not to say cards that appeal to one specific group are bad. There a plenty of cards in the game who do just that. But since when are cards like Shivan Dragon (something that is almost all Timmy) or Eater of Days (a card that is almost all Johnny) as appealing as cards as doubling season, platinum angel, and many others that appeal to most every psychographic?
I feel people get so caught up in getting perfect or near perfect scores to show that they did a good design, when frankly those cards a few and far between. Additional I feel too many people want to get near perfect scores for cards that may be good enough to be printed in the right context, but are fairly by the numbers. Appeal is a category that can be tough, but honestly its not unreasonable to design cards that have at least some appeal to most psychographics. Just realize when you're designing a card with truly niche appeal, and what that means less people on average will want it and there are less room in sets for cards like it.
I think the more you look at contemporary magic, the more you realize that the average card has appeal to more than one psychographic.
I could go for getting rid of the Appeal category, or just finding a different metric. Also, I should not have tried to do the impossible. Cipher, you have wrecked many more a custom designed than me.
I feel it was a lot more than Cipher that made your entry less desirable. I don't think either judge referenced how similar your card is to fateseal effects, and as repeatable one how unfun/oppressive taht could be. So while I could see your card making some tournament waves, it would be for the wrong reasons.
Icarii, you're definitely right. I was trying to design a "fair" Fateseal card. I think that tying Fateseal to combat damage wouldn't be too oppressive, but it might be. I made it a "put in GY" instead of "put on bottom" effect to make it less effective against decks that play in the GY. Also, I wanted to give it flexibility, so allowed it to target yourself so you could dig through your deck. It was a fun challenge regardless.
I did mention Fateseal in the uniqueness section and adressed the problem in "This kind of effect can be very dangerous", but I felt it was okay, because it was tied to a creature and I shot the card down in balance more or less (21.5 points is still a lot), because I felt it wasn't strong enough. To be honest with you all, I have very little knowledge of constructed, as I haven't been competing in that since Future Sight, which was 10 years ago. I have this warped impression that nothing outside of Thragtusk-tier creature quality and flat out hard removal can compete in that environment.
Maybe the Judge Sign-up thread should mention if you need extended knowledge in some area or maybe every judge should have some basic knowledge about Standard tournament decks and I'm just not cut out for that.
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
Please be quick. There have already been several delays this month. I've been lenenient in Roccos case because I think a Hisotric Natural Disaster is a reasonable excuse for being a little late. However the Round 4 thread needs to be up by midnight EST or it will be an infraction.
Please be quick. There have already been several delays this month. I've been lenenient in Roccos case because I think a Hisotric Natural Disaster is a reasonable excuse for being a little late. However the Round 4 thread needs to be up by midnight EST or it will be an infraction.
Which of my contest contributions have been late this month?
Please be quick. There have already been several delays this month. I've been lenenient in Roccos case because I think a Hisotric Natural Disaster is a reasonable excuse for being a little late. However the Round 4 thread needs to be up by midnight EST or it will be an infraction.
Which of my contest contributions have been late this month?
Pardon, It's hard to tell 100% with how the thread and your post had been edited. I had thought the Original Judge deadline was the 27th and not the 28th. Was it edited, AA? You were about on time if it was not edited.
Regardless, you posted your results last, completeting them around 12:00am-1:00am on the 29th, which means even with AA's in thread update giving himself an extension, he has until tonight 12:00am-1:00am on the 31st.
The fact that round 4 is being posted on the 30th-31st of the month already shows that there have been delays in the rounds, so lets not fail too far behind.
I did mention Fateseal in the uniqueness section and adressed the problem in "This kind of effect can be very dangerous", but I felt it was okay, because it was tied to a creature and I shot the card down in balance more or less (21.5 points is still a lot), because I felt it wasn't strong enough. To be honest with you all, I have very little knowledge of constructed, as I haven't been competing in that since Future Sight, which was 10 years ago. I have this warped impression that nothing outside of Thragtusk-tier creature quality and flat out hard removal can compete in that environment.
Maybe the Judge Sign-up thread should mention if you need extended knowledge in some area or maybe every judge should have some basic knowledge about Standard tournament decks and I'm just not cut out for that.
No worries! I mainly play Commander and sealed, so I'm there with you.
(The idea was inspired by this picture. Basam, god of Farming become The Locust God because locust does exactly the opposite - I mean, eating the cultivated lands).
Is that picture canonical, or is it just speculation?
(The idea was inspired by this picture. Basam, god of Farming become The Locust God because locust does exactly the opposite - I mean, eating the cultivated lands).
Is that picture canonical, or is it just speculation?
I do feel the Appeal category captures this poorly. A card that really really appeals to only one psychographic is better than a card that two-three psychographics like but aren't wild about, imo. Maybe we should award two points for "This psychographic just loves this card"?
That man said yesterday via blogatog:
Q: Is the design team for a Commander Set subjected to the restrictions of the Color Pie as much as the design team for a regular expansion set?
A: Yes. The color pie is the same for all formats.
Though the facts just are, some Commander cards are weird in terms of color pie restrictions.
I used to deduct points if a card stepped on other demographic's toes too much, but I'm uncertain about that now.
Aside from that I've moved to call the demographics Timmy/Tammy, Johnny/Jenny and Spike, because I like that idea of inclusiveness.
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 don't want to ramble on too much, so I will limit my post to two points.
(1) This forum worships the words of MaRo as if he were Jesus Christ. MaRo is most definitely on the conservative end of Magic card design, but we need to appreciate the fact that he is overseeing an institution in a way. Most leaders of institutions view themselves as caretakers and guardians. This is true in families. This is true in churches. This is true in government. It's human nature, and indeed that role is valuable for an institution and for Magic design. That guardian/protector instinct helps prevent things from going too far. But we have to realize that good Magic card design requires that people push the boundaries. It requires that some card designers design mechanics like Embalm, a mechanic that would have been panned on this forum for being in Blue. It is healthy and necessary for a card design team to have members that don't mind pushing the boundaries in the search for novel gameplay experience and other members who are more concerned about its dangers. That creates a healthy team dynamic, with many pushes and pulls. I wish that this forum would appreciate all the Magic designers who are not MaRo and the gospel of his Blogatog. To share MaRo's conservative guardianship role is not our cross to bear.
(2) We too often consider cards in the abstract rather than seeing them as fitting into a certain limited environment and story environment. In a word, we judge cards solely as if they came to us in Commander products. The fact of the matter is that the majority of Magic cards are created to support and build a created world and a created Limited/Standard environment. Earlier this year MaRo himself discussed how what constitutes a color pie violation is world and set dependent - the difference between "bend" and "break" has as much to do with the limited world as it does with mechanics. Yet this forum only considers the mechanics (which tends to get my card designs into trouble here). The card in question was Hour of Eternity, which I admit is the only card in the past 2-3 years that I still don't like from the color pie perspective. MaRo was adamant that in the world of Hour of Devastation, that card is not a color pie break in the world of Amonkhet, although in most worlds it would be.
---------------
I also agree with those who think that the Appeal category makes no sense. Good design doesn't appeal to everyone; it appeals to someone. That's one of MaRo's and Sam Stoddard's most oft-sung refrains, and I think they are right. I understand why the "Appeal" category was set up that way - a desire to reduce the humane task of aesthetic judgment to an objective social science. In my opinion, endeavors of that sort don't end well, whether it be in Olympic figure skating (I find figure skating unwatchable now whereas before the "objectivity rules" changes it was my favorite olympic sport) or in academia.
Club Flamingo Wins: 1!
How about "fun"? I.E., how much do the player type(s) it's meant for enjoy it?
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
I'd be down for slicing a point off Appeal and rephrasing it to something like "Does does this strongly appeal to some sizable group?" void's suggestion isn't bad either.
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
As I've defended multiple times on this forums the idea behind the appeal section is, while a card that appeals to one psychographic is good a card that appeals to multiple psychographics is better. Making it so a player would get full points to appeal for just pleasing one psychographic is inaccurate to what the strongest designs do.
That's not to say cards that appeal to one specific group are bad. There a plenty of cards in the game who do just that. But since when are cards like Shivan Dragon (something that is almost all Timmy) or Eater of Days (a card that is almost all Johnny) as appealing as cards as doubling season, platinum angel, and many others that appeal to most every psychographic?
I feel people get so caught up in getting perfect or near perfect scores to show that they did a good design, when frankly those cards a few and far between. Additional I feel too many people want to get near perfect scores for cards that may be good enough to be printed in the right context, but are fairly by the numbers. Appeal is a category that can be tough, but honestly its not unreasonable to design cards that have at least some appeal to most psychographics. Just realize when you're designing a card with truly niche appeal, and what that means less people on average will want it and there are less room in sets for cards like it.
I think the more you look at contemporary magic, the more you realize that the average card has appeal to more than one psychographic.
I feel it was a lot more than Cipher that made your entry less desirable. I don't think either judge referenced how similar your card is to fateseal effects, and as repeatable one how unfun/oppressive taht could be. So while I could see your card making some tournament waves, it would be for the wrong reasons.
Club Flamingo Wins: 1!
Maybe the Judge Sign-up thread should mention if you need extended knowledge in some area or maybe every judge should have some basic knowledge about Standard tournament decks and I'm just not cut out for that.
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
Which of my contest contributions have been late this month?
Pardon, It's hard to tell 100% with how the thread and your post had been edited. I had thought the Original Judge deadline was the 27th and not the 28th. Was it edited, AA? You were about on time if it was not edited.
Regardless, you posted your results last, completeting them around 12:00am-1:00am on the 29th, which means even with AA's in thread update giving himself an extension, he has until tonight 12:00am-1:00am on the 31st.
The fact that round 4 is being posted on the 30th-31st of the month already shows that there have been delays in the rounds, so lets not fail too far behind.
No worries! I mainly play Commander and sealed, so I'm there with you.
Club Flamingo Wins: 1!
Is that picture canonical, or is it just speculation?
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
Probably fan art.
I can take it if there are no other options. I'd like to run Ixalan-themed MCC.
If you could that would be amazing.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝