At risk of usurping the MCC's natural order, I decided to judge Necarg's bracket and put the second round of the MCC up. You can find my judgments in the thread for the first round of the MCC.
Necarg is still AWOL. I would be willing to step in and complete his bracket (excluding myself, of course) and put up the next round if people are interested with the contest moving forward.
What's the logic behind stretching the deadlines back so far? Yes, extra time is always appreciated, but I believe that 6 days for entries and 5 for judging is excessive. From my experience, many judges complete their judgments the night of the deadline (or the day after, in some cases). Now we're in a position where we're almost halfway through the month, yet we're still waiting on a judge for the first round. Perhaps we should return to the old schedule of 4 days of entries followed by 3 days of judgment next month?
(2/3) Viability: Devoid has been recieved rather poorly, I question your decision to include it on the card. I see nothing red isn't supposed to do and Mythic is probably the right slot for massive 'impulsive' card draw.
While I can agree that devoid is a poor mechanic, omitting it from an Kozilek spell that was designed as though it were in Oath of the Gatewatch would likely be worse.
(1/3) Balance: This looks like it's problematic when included in a storm deck. It either ramps for 3, which not even Seething Song did or it get's you 7 new cards to play. That's insane. This can't be right.
While I do concede that this card is very powerful (perhaps more so than Seething Song on the surface), I'd argue that it's harder to use and therefore deserves more power in its budget. Quadruple red is not trivial to achieve, and seven colorless mana is not easy to use in a typical ritual-based storm deck, especially given how it cannot be used to cast further quadruple red spells.
Again, those are both very powerful things, but I'd argue that a RRRR-costing Bane of Bala Ged is comparable in power level to a turn 4 Elder Deep-Fiend accompanied by a flashed-back Kozilek's Return.
These are just my opinions at the end of the day, and even if they have no bearing on your judgement I appreciate your reading my comments. Thank you!
Balance: This is super broken. It's like a double exploration for one more mana. Even the casting restriction doesn't help, because how many decks want to be casting spells that big? Not to mention that it's a super potent combo piece in the same way that Summer Bloom was. In limited, this card is even more ridiculous, creating likely unwinnable board states simply by hitting the field. This should cost at least one more coloured mana. I would say GGU to make it a bit better.
0.5/3
This feels like a very shallow and knee-jerk judging of my card. Yes, an obvious comparison is to Exploration; but the presence of a second color allows for a lot more power in the budget, as does the hefty drawback. One mana alone may not seem like much, but have you ever played against Thalia, Guardian of Thraben? Now imagine that's applied for every early and mid-game spell you play. Now that I think about it, your comments suggest to me that you misread my card as "spells you cast with CMC 6 or more" when it's really 6 or less. Lastly, saying that this creates "ridiculous board states" by hitting the field is an absurd oversimplification. It requires several other factors, such as having several excess lands in hand, enough mana to pay for the tax, a high enough curve to take advantage of, etc. Consider your average limited deck or 40% lands; by turn 3 on the play, you've drawn 4 lands on average. Let's say you have 5 in your hand for argument's sake. So by playing Domain on turn 2, you get to play a 4 drop on turn 3. How exactly is that broken?
Overall this judgment feels very disappointing. It offers very little insight and feels very rushed, like you were trying to get it done 20 minutes before the deadline and barely took the time to read the card before writing a hasty judgment and moving on. That it came a day late exacerbates that effect.
(2/3) Viability: The words “defending player controlss” is unnecessary. If you want a creature to block, it shouldn't matter who the defending player is.
Avalanche Tusker gives precedence to "target creature defending player controls" as wording. There are slightly older cards with the alternative wording (Feral Contest), but I believe that that would not render my wording objectively incorrect.
Would a card with madness fulfil a third of the main challenge, given how it exiles itself to its replacement effect?
Madness [Cost] (If you discard this card, you may cast it for its madness cost instead of putting it into your graveyard.)
What 'cha talking about double A? I don't see where exiling and madness intersect.
Quote from Comp Rules »
702.34a Madness is a keyword that represents two abilities. The first is a static ability that functions while the card with madness is in a player's hand. The second is a triggered ability that functions when the first ability is applied. "Madness [cost]" means "If a player would discard this card, that player discards it, but may exile it instead of putting it into his or her graveyard" and "When this card is exiled this way, its owner may cast it by paying [cost] rather than paying its mana cost. If that player doesn't, he or she puts this card into his or her graveyard."
An obscure functionality, but it still exiles itself.
I'm terribly sorry for the delays. Oakland was a lot of fun (good), but my car broke down on the ride home (bad). I just arrived home late last night and didn't have the energy to finish judgments then. I'll have them up shortly.
For the main challenge, do you mean "mana ability" as defined by the rules or "ability that produces mana"? (Yes, there is a difference; Crumbling Vestige's triggered ability does not count as a mana aility under the rules, and uses the stack!)
While I can agree that devoid is a poor mechanic, omitting it from an Kozilek spell that was designed as though it were in Oath of the Gatewatch would likely be worse.
While I do concede that this card is very powerful (perhaps more so than Seething Song on the surface), I'd argue that it's harder to use and therefore deserves more power in its budget. Quadruple red is not trivial to achieve, and seven colorless mana is not easy to use in a typical ritual-based storm deck, especially given how it cannot be used to cast further quadruple red spells.
Again, those are both very powerful things, but I'd argue that a RRRR-costing Bane of Bala Ged is comparable in power level to a turn 4 Elder Deep-Fiend accompanied by a flashed-back Kozilek's Return.
These are just my opinions at the end of the day, and even if they have no bearing on your judgement I appreciate your reading my comments. Thank you!
This feels like a very shallow and knee-jerk judging of my card. Yes, an obvious comparison is to Exploration; but the presence of a second color allows for a lot more power in the budget, as does the hefty drawback. One mana alone may not seem like much, but have you ever played against Thalia, Guardian of Thraben? Now imagine that's applied for every early and mid-game spell you play. Now that I think about it, your comments suggest to me that you misread my card as "spells you cast with CMC 6 or more" when it's really 6 or less. Lastly, saying that this creates "ridiculous board states" by hitting the field is an absurd oversimplification. It requires several other factors, such as having several excess lands in hand, enough mana to pay for the tax, a high enough curve to take advantage of, etc. Consider your average limited deck or 40% lands; by turn 3 on the play, you've drawn 4 lands on average. Let's say you have 5 in your hand for argument's sake. So by playing Domain on turn 2, you get to play a 4 drop on turn 3. How exactly is that broken?
Overall this judgment feels very disappointing. It offers very little insight and feels very rushed, like you were trying to get it done 20 minutes before the deadline and barely took the time to read the card before writing a hasty judgment and moving on. That it came a day late exacerbates that effect.
Avalanche Tusker gives precedence to "target creature defending player controls" as wording. There are slightly older cards with the alternative wording (Feral Contest), but I believe that that would not render my wording objectively incorrect.
An obscure functionality, but it still exiles itself.