I'll get a picture up for the CCL tonight - hard to do that on my laptop but will attend to it when I get home tonight. But the Round is up! Let's see some Dominaria love!
I wouldn't mind hosting next month, although I feel inundated because I'm in both finals this go around. Maybe I should volunteer for March instead, or just volunteer to judge the MCC in February. I was under the impression that IcariiFA was going to host the CCL next month, but I guess I'm misremembering things since void said he was looking for a February host.
Is Limited Range of Influence (LRI) an option set at the start of a multiplayer game? Like do players sit down and go "We're going to play this game with a LRI of 1"? Or is it something like Ascend or the Monarch where cards introduce the "mechanic" to the game? To phrase differently, do cards establish LRI or is it a game variant that supersedes cards?
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 might not be able to submit until Sunday if that's okay - I think I'll be in Montreal on Friday and Saturday. Won't be difficult for me to submit on the Sunday train back to Toronto. Figured I should say something now so Willows would know that he'd likely get an extra day to design.
In this case, Icarii, I think you underestimated what is required to showcase a new supertype. It is telling that 3 of the 4 entries required multiple cards and significant explanation for the others to understand it (and if Flatline had alternate supplemental products in mind, then all of the entries required these things). 2 of us took that liberty (for the greater good), and Willows opted not to but in so doing no one understood his entry. I would have liked to have seen multiple cards from Willows and an explanation about what sort of product he wanted his supertype to be found in.
The CCL competition is more collaborative, and I value understanding what other people are doing and I want other people to know what I am doing. Feedback is helpful, and I think that Hemlock, Flatline, and I received real feedback yet Willows did not.
We need only look at "Host-Augment" from Unstable to recognize immediately that minimalist entries of 1 card along with a quick rules quip simply wouldn't have been sufficient in most cases. There isn't a soul alive on planet earth that understood Host-Augment upon seeing 1 or 2 cards. I also think you understated the nature of your challenge - creating a new supertype is so extraordinary (it's been done thrice in the past 20 years, two of which were in supplemental products) that the type itself is more the focus than the cards. All of us spent infinitely more time thinking about the type than the card. That should be clear from the feedback everyone gave out, and it should be clear from the cards that were produced. Mine, in particular, were stock cards intended to explain and showcase the supertype - none drew attention to themselves, and that was intentional. This is why I was surprised that you took such offense at my entry.
I think there was a disconnect between host and participants this round, and a disconnect between the host's vision of his challenge and the practical necessities that his challenge demanded. As Willows noted, participants shouldn't be blamed for that. We did the best we could, and I think all of us acted in good faith.
-------------
Also want to add a quick note about another thing that Willows said. "It is unclear what exactly it is we are supposed to be judging". This is true - in all these rounds Icarii never told us how to judge and only told us to judge. I think most people intuitively recognize that they should judge what it is that took the most effort in the round. People also want to highlight what it is that they spent the most time developing for their submissions. This is why the cards in Rounds 2 and 4 were simpler so as to highlight the new mechanic and supertype, and why most of the feedback and judgment provided in those rounds centered on those mechanics themselves. I think the CCL self-regulates in this way. It's a good feature of the CCL.
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 am not sure what would make this part of a miserable limited, but tbh I hate limited because you can't build constructed-quality decks in it and I always feel like I'm playing babby magic so I don't especially design for it. Panoply is designed to make Auras and Equipment more valuable by making them hit much harder, and to create that dream of building your own Emrakul.
I think two of us had this problem with Panoply. It's hard to explain why it is so awful if you don't play any Limited, but basically "build your own Emrakul" is usually a really bad strategy in limited, for 2 reasons. (1) Unless all of your creatures have hexproof (which a good format should NOT allow because good formats are interactive formats, just like good games of Magic are interactive games of Magic), your precious 3-card 8/8 lifelink flying is going to die to a 1-card removal or bounce spell. That is really frustrating for the player whose creature gets killed or bounced, and if no such removal spell manifests itself then your opponent had a bad experience since he was essentially helpless. Put simply, these sorts of games rarely will be ones in which both players had fun and in which both players felt that they had agency over the game. (2) There simply aren't enough slots in a deck to have more than a few auras. If you're jamming 4-6 auras in your deck to enable your Panoply creatures, then you're not going to be able to interact with your opponent's side of the board unless you really cut down on your creature count. This would lead to an uneven, "goldfishing" experience, one in which you are basically ignoring your opponent.
I could possibly envision Panoply going in a set with Bestow, or in a set with the "Arm" mechanic I came up with for this round, but I don't think it would be kindly looked upon by the majority of players. As you say, perhaps in Commander or something, although would anyone want to play a Panoply creature in Constructed unless that creature also had hexproof?
EDIT: I should add that two Limited formats with aura subthemes are Theros and Vintage Masters. Both of those are good examples for all of us to look to when designing aura-related mechanics and planning environments in which auras will feature a more prominent part than usual. I had the pleasure of playing Vintage Masters over Christmas, and it was easily my favorite Limited format of all time (even you would like this one Willows). I'll attach an image of my favorite deck that I built from it.
Interpret as you will. All I asked was for a new type counter.
Your feedback from the last round of the MCC made me realize that Scaled would work best if it read "A creature with scaled enters the battlefield with a scale counter. If a creature with a scale counter would leave the battlefield, it loses a scale counter instead." That would address the tracking issues. I had been conceiving of Scaled as a sort of backwards Monstrosity from Theros. If we had been tasked with finishing the cycle, my goal would have been to make the rare cycle of Garadon beasts all have Scaled.
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.
@Flatline: I like keeping the type line. It's more immersive that way. As I said in my feedback of Ormos as a whole - the implants need to do something other than de facto pacify enemy creatures if they're going to be fun. They read better than I imagine them playing. I think there are ways to implement them, but you're going to have to get really creative and whacky, and I would limit the number of them so you can make all of them a homerun.
I do worry about them being equipment instead of auras.
@IcariiFA: these counters for the next round..need they be "essential" counters and not "nominal" counters? Id est, need they be similar to +1/+1, -1/-1, time, poison, and loyalty counters, or can they be something that depends more heavily on stated rules text on the card like Spore counters,divinity counters, and prey counters?
Another way to ask the question is: "Are we designing a new type of counter that has wide application, or are we designing a new type of counter that is more card-specific in its utility?"
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 was confused about your use of italics for rules text on your Nicol Bolas card as well. Is that legit?
Is this question in reference to my finals entry?
It's the same rules issue isn't it? Both the Nicol Bolas card and the Implant card are using italics (reminder?) text for rules text. I don't know if it's legit or not to do that according to the rules. I'm more okay with the Implant one doing that, but I don't know why I feel that way. Perhaps because "Implant" as a "type" can have intrinsic meaning? Hopefully someone else comments on it because I really don't know.
I'll be posting Round 2 tomorrow.
Sure, I'll host this month. You can host it next month! I won't want to host twice in a row.
This final challenge looks rough!
The CCL competition is more collaborative, and I value understanding what other people are doing and I want other people to know what I am doing. Feedback is helpful, and I think that Hemlock, Flatline, and I received real feedback yet Willows did not.
We need only look at "Host-Augment" from Unstable to recognize immediately that minimalist entries of 1 card along with a quick rules quip simply wouldn't have been sufficient in most cases. There isn't a soul alive on planet earth that understood Host-Augment upon seeing 1 or 2 cards. I also think you understated the nature of your challenge - creating a new supertype is so extraordinary (it's been done thrice in the past 20 years, two of which were in supplemental products) that the type itself is more the focus than the cards. All of us spent infinitely more time thinking about the type than the card. That should be clear from the feedback everyone gave out, and it should be clear from the cards that were produced. Mine, in particular, were stock cards intended to explain and showcase the supertype - none drew attention to themselves, and that was intentional. This is why I was surprised that you took such offense at my entry.
I think there was a disconnect between host and participants this round, and a disconnect between the host's vision of his challenge and the practical necessities that his challenge demanded. As Willows noted, participants shouldn't be blamed for that. We did the best we could, and I think all of us acted in good faith.
-------------
Also want to add a quick note about another thing that Willows said. "It is unclear what exactly it is we are supposed to be judging". This is true - in all these rounds Icarii never told us how to judge and only told us to judge. I think most people intuitively recognize that they should judge what it is that took the most effort in the round. People also want to highlight what it is that they spent the most time developing for their submissions. This is why the cards in Rounds 2 and 4 were simpler so as to highlight the new mechanic and supertype, and why most of the feedback and judgment provided in those rounds centered on those mechanics themselves. I think the CCL self-regulates in this way. It's a good feature of the CCL.
I think two of us had this problem with Panoply. It's hard to explain why it is so awful if you don't play any Limited, but basically "build your own Emrakul" is usually a really bad strategy in limited, for 2 reasons. (1) Unless all of your creatures have hexproof (which a good format should NOT allow because good formats are interactive formats, just like good games of Magic are interactive games of Magic), your precious 3-card 8/8 lifelink flying is going to die to a 1-card removal or bounce spell. That is really frustrating for the player whose creature gets killed or bounced, and if no such removal spell manifests itself then your opponent had a bad experience since he was essentially helpless. Put simply, these sorts of games rarely will be ones in which both players had fun and in which both players felt that they had agency over the game. (2) There simply aren't enough slots in a deck to have more than a few auras. If you're jamming 4-6 auras in your deck to enable your Panoply creatures, then you're not going to be able to interact with your opponent's side of the board unless you really cut down on your creature count. This would lead to an uneven, "goldfishing" experience, one in which you are basically ignoring your opponent.
I could possibly envision Panoply going in a set with Bestow, or in a set with the "Arm" mechanic I came up with for this round, but I don't think it would be kindly looked upon by the majority of players. As you say, perhaps in Commander or something, although would anyone want to play a Panoply creature in Constructed unless that creature also had hexproof?
Ultra-Slippery Bogle 1UG
Creature - Bogle
Hexproof, Panoply
1/1
That's probably fair for Constructed, eh?
EDIT: I should add that two Limited formats with aura subthemes are Theros and Vintage Masters. Both of those are good examples for all of us to look to when designing aura-related mechanics and planning environments in which auras will feature a more prominent part than usual. I had the pleasure of playing Vintage Masters over Christmas, and it was easily my favorite Limited format of all time (even you would like this one Willows). I'll attach an image of my favorite deck that I built from it.
Your feedback from the last round of the MCC made me realize that Scaled would work best if it read "A creature with scaled enters the battlefield with a scale counter. If a creature with a scale counter would leave the battlefield, it loses a scale counter instead." That would address the tracking issues. I had been conceiving of Scaled as a sort of backwards Monstrosity from Theros. If we had been tasked with finishing the cycle, my goal would have been to make the rare cycle of Garadon beasts all have Scaled.
I do worry about them being equipment instead of auras.
@IcariiFA: these counters for the next round..need they be "essential" counters and not "nominal" counters? Id est, need they be similar to +1/+1, -1/-1, time, poison, and loyalty counters, or can they be something that depends more heavily on stated rules text on the card like Spore counters,divinity counters, and prey counters?
Another way to ask the question is: "Are we designing a new type of counter that has wide application, or are we designing a new type of counter that is more card-specific in its utility?"
It's the same rules issue isn't it? Both the Nicol Bolas card and the Implant card are using italics (reminder?) text for rules text. I don't know if it's legit or not to do that according to the rules. I'm more okay with the Implant one doing that, but I don't know why I feel that way. Perhaps because "Implant" as a "type" can have intrinsic meaning? Hopefully someone else comments on it because I really don't know.