Ah yes, I see. The moon is made of stone and stones are often used for counters, tide counters for example, and when you return creatures do player's hands, they have to play them again, so that you can counter them. Very clever. Clever indeed.
Wow, that's some Illuminati-level theorizing right there! You're giving me far too much credit. The moon controls the tides, and the dam itself is made of stone. Tide counters are to simulate the dam weakening somewhat under load. I appreciate the thoughtful critique, and agree that non-sentient walls make perfect flavor sense.
I've participated in and organized many other creative forum contests over the last fifteen years. All of them featured one of these two scoring methods:
A designated few judges who provided detailed scores and critiques, a la the MCC
A system wherein the entrants themselves are required to score each of the other entries, whether they provide critiques or not.
It just IS NOT too much to ask of the entrants to read the other entries, and pick three favorites. They're probably doing it anyway, mentally, right? Like Flatline, I'll continue to participate in the CCL contests regardless. It's fun, even if providing thoughtful, honest scores and critiques put me at a disadvantage.
Why can't it be enchantments? That sounds like an unnecessary restriction. I like how you can use it to blink cards, but also is a way to remove cards forever. Fun. But kinda disconnected from the rest of the card. Shouldn't this have granted more flying? Guess that would have been weird. But a connection would have been nice.
Heh, yeah, the Skybind effect was a holdover from when I was designing an entry from Theros. I liked this effect, and picked Serra's Realm specifically so it could be left in. (See: Serra's Sanctum.)
Quarelling Co-ConspiratorsWU
Creature — Rogue Advisor (R)
Flash
If an opponent would become the monarch, instead, each player secretly votes for one of his or her opponents, then all players reveal their votes. If there is not a tie, the player with the most votes becomes the monarch. (A tied vote has no effect.) "The king is dead, long live the kings!"
1/3
Kinda interesting and sort of political, but how will it work? Every player will vote for itself because you ARE the opponent of that player who failed to become the monarch, so that player will choose who it actually will be. I prefer this over Prince of Sewers only because it feels a bit more political.
Each player votes for one of his or her opponents, not that player's opponents. No player can vote for themselves. They have to vote for one of their own opponents. In hindsight, this could've been less ambiguously-worded.
Loving this month's first round challenge. Got a question.
Is it up to the individual voters whether to deduct points for cards designed specifically with multiplayer in mind, or can that be made an officially acceptable design angle? Gotta know before I decide on a basic design to bang my head against.
I won't have the time or inclination to fully research ten custom planes just for the purpose of casting a single vote. I'll give each set thread a quick perusal while evaluating the submissions, but will definitely be weighing mechanics far above flavor this time.
I do enjoy designing and hosting forum contests like this. I'd still rather participate as an entrant on account of being rather new to the scene, but if no one else wants the job, I'm happy to step in.
kj: Yes, the Liliana was designed with Standard and Limited strategies in mind (same as WotC purports to do). The bottom line is that 2-mana 'walkers have a design complication that most other cards don't, and you outlined it in this last post — there needs to be a reason to play it over any other card on turn 2, but second-turn plays shouldn't be game-breaking. Striking that balance while keeping the card versatile and flavorful is tough.
My least favorite part of the design (besides the accidental transformation clause in her -3 ability), is the amount of life loss she inflicts if her first and third abilities are used in the same game. Specifically, I wish I'd have found a better way to empower her -3 without life loss at all. That way, there's not a huge cost to have what amounts to little game-impact the turn she comes down (in the early game, anyway). I toyed with lots of combinations of effects, but couldn't find something I thought balanced value and fairness. That balance is still a bit off, as you've noted. Thanks for being able to appreciate the delicacy of the design, in any case. It ain't perfect, but it's probably the card I've spend the most effort on so far.
Quality: in the -3 "it's" (verb) has become "its" (possessive).
Oh, geez. That's embarrassing. I definitely do know the difference. My phone is less scrupulous, and always defaults to the contraction. If I don't pay attention, all of my itses become it'ses.
EDIT:
Quote from kjsharp »
So, summary judgment: I can tell that a lot of care went into balancing the card, and I appreciate the ambitious nature of designing a two-mana planeswalker. I *think* this card is balanced enough to be printed. The BB cost was essential for making me happy about this design, for this could be a reason to go heavily black in a standard environment. I'm unsure whether the card within itself is balanced - meaning that I'm unsure that the card fosters meaningful choice and multiple lines of play; and if it isn't, then the card should be a sorcery instead of a planeswalker. Nevertheless, I can tell that your goal was to design a 2-mana planeswalker for the sake of designing a 2-mana planeswalker, and I think you were successful in creating a good draft of one. A thoughtful and delicate execution!
Very incisive and thoughtful comments. Yes, the reasoning for designing a 2CMC planeswalker had a lot to do with the challenge of it. And yes, balancing the card took much careful tinkering (and thus forum edits. Probably upwards of 20). I'm glad that comes across. I agree that the second ability is the most versatile and generally useful of the three, but I had to also consider that you'd need a reason to play her on turn 2, when your graveyard is probably empty. In fact, I envisioned the primary line of play to be scrying 2, helping to set up a favorable -3 the turn after. Playing her in the late game, the -2 ability will almost always be an immediate choice, but it's mostly useless for the first few turns in any "fair" deck.
Worth noting is that this is not a planeswalker that is intended to stick around very long. If you can manage to keep her safe for a while (by either just sitting on her or ticking her up without paying the 2 life), then she could function as sort of a Dark Confidant with vanishing. I truly appreciate your critique. I don't feel unfairly judged, even if I don't completely agree with the criticism.
EDIT2: I absolutely agree with multiple judges' criticisms of forcing the transform on the -3 ability... in fact, its inclusion was a mistake. As noted above, I wanted her to be able to function as a limited-use (but not single-use-only) Dark Confidant. As also noted above, the card went through many revisions, including a version that transformed with the -3 instead of as a death trigger. That clause apparently got left in. Serves me right for posting before I had settled on a final design. Oh well :|
In an alternate reality, I assumed the judging would take the same form as the previous round, and pre-evaluated the 6 entries below mine in chronological order. Arborification took 2nd place in that grouping, for essentially the same reasons you've laid out here.
Wow, that's some Illuminati-level theorizing right there! You're giving me far too much credit. The moon controls the tides, and the dam itself is made of stone. Tide counters are to simulate the dam weakening somewhat under load. I appreciate the thoughtful critique, and agree that non-sentient walls make perfect flavor sense.
Good luck to everyone advancing.
Each player votes for one of his or her opponents, not that player's opponents. No player can vote for themselves. They have to vote for one of their own opponents. In hindsight, this could've been less ambiguously-worded.
Is it up to the individual voters whether to deduct points for cards designed specifically with multiplayer in mind, or can that be made an officially acceptable design angle? Gotta know before I decide on a basic design to bang my head against.
I won't have the time or inclination to fully research ten custom planes just for the purpose of casting a single vote. I'll give each set thread a quick perusal while evaluating the submissions, but will definitely be weighing mechanics far above flavor this time.
Sorry, my Texas is showing.
My least favorite part of the design (besides the accidental transformation clause in her -3 ability), is the amount of life loss she inflicts if her first and third abilities are used in the same game. Specifically, I wish I'd have found a better way to empower her -3 without life loss at all. That way, there's not a huge cost to have what amounts to little game-impact the turn she comes down (in the early game, anyway). I toyed with lots of combinations of effects, but couldn't find something I thought balanced value and fairness. That balance is still a bit off, as you've noted. Thanks for being able to appreciate the delicacy of the design, in any case. It ain't perfect, but it's probably the card I've spend the most effort on so far.
Good luck in the semis.
EDIT: Very incisive and thoughtful comments. Yes, the reasoning for designing a 2CMC planeswalker had a lot to do with the challenge of it. And yes, balancing the card took much careful tinkering (and thus forum edits. Probably upwards of 20). I'm glad that comes across. I agree that the second ability is the most versatile and generally useful of the three, but I had to also consider that you'd need a reason to play her on turn 2, when your graveyard is probably empty. In fact, I envisioned the primary line of play to be scrying 2, helping to set up a favorable -3 the turn after. Playing her in the late game, the -2 ability will almost always be an immediate choice, but it's mostly useless for the first few turns in any "fair" deck.
Worth noting is that this is not a planeswalker that is intended to stick around very long. If you can manage to keep her safe for a while (by either just sitting on her or ticking her up without paying the 2 life), then she could function as sort of a Dark Confidant with vanishing. I truly appreciate your critique. I don't feel unfairly judged, even if I don't completely agree with the criticism.
EDIT2: I absolutely agree with multiple judges' criticisms of forcing the transform on the -3 ability... in fact, its inclusion was a mistake. As noted above, I wanted her to be able to function as a limited-use (but not single-use-only) Dark Confidant. As also noted above, the card went through many revisions, including a version that transformed with the -3 instead of as a death trigger. That clause apparently got left in. Serves me right for posting before I had settled on a final design. Oh well :|