@Asrama & Solesticio - I understand your argument. Even though I wouldn't change my decision in this specific instance, I'm glad we had this discussion - gave me a new lens to look through at things.
I agree, but that seems to make sense to me. If one was in 1st place for three rounds, then designed a mediocre (or even quite bad) design in the semis, I feel like he(/she) should at least have some chance to be in the finals. For instance, say that I'm quite bad at developing cards to a correct power level, and often make over- or underpowered cards. If the semifinals were about taking a design and developing it, and if the score are reset, my chances of getting to the finals are very slim - even if I got a good score in the last three rounds. That seems like too much of a high-variance game to me - especially considering that we have the MCC, which is a LOT narrower (in one's chances to pass a round, at least).
TL;DR - I feel that resetting the score at the semifinals means that a personal bias or preference could severely hurt one's chance of getting to the finals, despite scoring very highly of previous rounds.
I am sorry, but I still feel like I made the right call. I apologize if I moved from a tradition, but I'm not going to change it. Had I realized that was the case, I would've made it clear from the beginning that I'm going to do it this way.
I would like to add to Flatline's response to Jimmy Groove's critiques; I forgot to specify, but using more than one creature type is totally acceptable, even if one of them already has a Legend - the intention is to make a legendary creature for a tribe, and if that tribe generally has "class" types (like Soldier, Wizard etc.) you can totally use them.
@Flatline - based on Mark Rosewater's blog, he doesn't count un-legends when looking at the creature types and which don't have legends yet, so my guess is no. In other words, there isn't technically a legendary Elephant in the game.
For the last three month at least, we had 3 free-for-entry rounds, followed by a 6-people semifinals and then a 3-people finals. It was on the schedule, which I copied from GameWorldLeader's October CCL.
For the last three month at least, we had 3 free-for-entry rounds, followed by a 6-people semifinals and then a 3-people finals. It was on the schedule, which I copied from GameWorldLeader's October CCL.
A dilemma arose during the judging of the 3rd round as we have a 3-way tie for the last seat at the semifinals. How do we solve that? Postponing the start of the round to tomorrow until we solve this.
Alright, that is time in the judging round. I apologize for the slight delay (it's definitely the 22nd at some parts of the world right now). Without further ado - the scores are:
Jimmy Groove - 44/108
willows - 42/108 (receiving perfect score this round, by the way - congrats!)
Moss_Elemental - 34/108
Flatline and Hemlock - 30/108
netn10, Asrama and RickyRister - 26/108
Koopa - 25/108
Solesticio and Ink-Treader - 24/108
glurman - 22/108
RaikouRider - 17/108
EpiCycle1 - 13/108
GameWorldLeader - 9/108
ArchSinccubus, mana and Forestsguy - 4/108
As you can see, we run into a bit of a problem: while our top four scorers give us five semifinalists, there is actually a three-way tie for the fourth place - netn10, Asrama and RickyRister. I'm inclined to give netn10 a seat, for actually participating in this round; however, Asrama expressed interest in participating in the round and posted about missing the deadline. How do you propose we solve this problem? I'm postponing the semifinal's beginning to tomorrow and adjusting the schedule accordingly. Please post your thoughts on this tie in the CCL discussion thread (and do tell me if there is a conventional mean to solve this type of problem).
Ahh, I see. I interpreted the comma in the flavor as a sign of causation ("Live alone, then die alone") rather than the intended addition ("Live alone and die alone"). I assume you can see where the confusion came from. As it stands, though, "creatures can only attack you alone" is probably still too powerful for 1BB, and if you used my suggestion - or better yet, a Propaganda-style "creatures can't attack you unless their controller pays 2 life for each attacking creature he or she controls beyond the first that's attacking you" - the card would feel a lot more balanced and natural (in my opinion, of course).
Unrelated to that, are the semifinals going to start any time soon? It's September 23rd already...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Anyway, the Finals poll is up, so please vote!
TL;DR - I feel that resetting the score at the semifinals means that a personal bias or preference could severely hurt one's chance of getting to the finals, despite scoring very highly of previous rounds.
|READ THIS PLEASE|
Unrelated to that, are the semifinals going to start any time soon? It's September 23rd already...