MTG Salvation

Quote from Antiantiserum »

(2,5/3) Quality: There's no perfect example, but Chittering Host indicates that haste is listed before menace. There are only three other creatures that have both words in their text box, all listing a whole bunch of other abilites.

(2,5/3) Quality: There's a doubling in the flavor text in "is more is more". No other flaws detected.

Quote from Flatline »

Devastating Loss 3BB
Instant (C)
Destroy up to two target creatures with converted mana cost two or less.
The loss of one parent is difficult enough, losing both is more than most can bear.

Quote from IcariiFA »

Quote from kjsharp »

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.

I think it's also important that you as players reflect on what you choose to do as well and likewise accept some responsibility.

I clearly asked for a single card, and given the challenge of supertypes you should consider what has functionally gone into black border magic. The supertypes that have been successful are generally easy to understand and grok in a single sentence. Legendary and Snow can both be explained quite elegantly in terms of rules. Your entry on the other hand, while it certainly had fun ideas, is an entire new format that would be hard to summerize and needed a lot of explanation. There isn't something inherently wrong with that for a supertype, except I gave you a budget of one card to show case it all.

I think that's what missing here, budget. You feel it would be easier/better to showcase a new supertype with multiple cards. I don't disagree. But that wasn't your budget. As a designer you have to cater to your budget. I deal with this as a graphic designer all the time, and it applies to my game development experiences too.

Lets say I had a commercial client who wanted to make a handout for a tradeshow they are showing at. They only have the time/budget for one sheet to be designed, even though they have a lot of information they want to represent. I know it would fit better and work easier if I could split across three pages, but they cant afford that even after I talk options through with them. So I have to work with one page, make a design that makes sense for that single page, and make sure I convey as much as possible with it.

You side stepped that hurdle by showcasing multiple cards because you came up with a cool idea and wanted to show that even if it may not of been the best fit for the challenge. There are times in the real world where you just can't do that. Make sense?

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.

This isn't a matter of a lack of good faith. Or course I don't think anyone was "trying" to cheat or be unfair. But part of the lesson I was trying to teach was missed, and sometimes the only way to learn a lesson is by making a mistake. I think this was one of those times. While there were certainly interesting ideas this round, I think it was taken forgranted the amount of complexity that was feasible for a one card entry, and contestants had trouble coming up with answers. This was a hidden aspect of the challenge. Perhaps I should be more transparent and provide hints for details like this that I feel are important.

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.

For the CCL, it hasn't really been the job of the organizer to tell people how to judge/what to focus on. Folks are left to judge based on their own criteria, so long as the entries are in the scope of the challenge. The one role an organizer usual takes in judging is clarifying any hard pass/fail criteria for a challenge. This typically isn't needed, as players can often see for themselves that something broke the rules. But occasionally, like this time, I felt the need to say that the rules were not followed. If something treads the line, I leave it to you individuals as judges to decide on. If it crosses what I asked for, I say something/clarify.

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.

As stated, people are allowed to judge the challenge how they like.If they found the supertype most important, that's fine. If they put a lot of emphasis on the card, that's also fine. It's not up to me to tell people what to prioritize in their scoring, just to clarify if rules had been broken.