MTG Salvation

Wow! I was just joking about making history on Nexus, but I think I might actually get close. Hosting the last MCC here? Check! Hosting the first MCC on Nexus? Check! And now I can add: winning the last CCL here more than two years after my last previous CCL win? Check! Now I have to update my resume spoiler again! And on what I expect to be one of my last days here ever (only waiting to see the final DCC results tomorrow and to declare a winner for the July MCC). Well, I can't certainly complain about it!

On a serious note, this has been an incredible run! Thank you all for some amazing years of custom card design, for making the contests what they are today, and just for having been there, all you wonderful people who share this passion for Magic as a game and custom cards specifically with me. I hope to see as many of you as possible on Nexus. I'm already there.

I like "Nature Awakened" a lot. Now I wish I had thought of it. If I had, that would definitely be Hakolp's title.

Yes, a mountain range as its spine would have very probably worked better, but again, I just didn't think of it.

Such a long list of keywords looks a bit unelegant to me, but it certainly would have helped the card feel more mythic. I was going for aesthetics: three colors, three abilities. But again, I've been taking it for granted and just didn't think about using more. (Can you see a common theme?)

I 100% remember reading about the wording with "it" being introduced in an "Oracle changes" article. I thought it was the one from Dominaria, but maybe it was actually later and my mind is just bad at remembering things (which it kinda is sometimes). I'll try to find the article again.

Don't worry, I'm not worrying about your judgments or the points I am or am not getting. This is just a very nice and civil discussion, and I will always be open to those.

EDIT: I'm trying to find the article. For now I've checked the Oracle changes article for Dominaria, and you're right, it wasn't that set. It has a lot of changes, but not that specific one. In the meantime, while I keep looking for it, here's a Gatherer search for cards with that wording:
https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?text= [%22:%20It%22]
Can't properly link to it because the forum software doesn't like the square brackets in the URL. If you want to check it, you should just do a copy and paste of the whole line.
I do notice that the "it" wording appears to only apply to damage dealing abilities. My treasure hunt for the article I remember continues. Further updates will follow.

EDIT 2: Ok, I've found it. It's the last change in the WAR Oracle changes article. The human brain is a wonderful thing... or at least it would be if it worked properly. I thought I had read it over a year ago while actually I had read it not even three months ago. And anyway, yes, the required conditions, detailed in the article, essentially imply that it mostly only applies to direct damage, so Hakolp shouldn't have it and you were right all along. I have no problems admitting a mistake. I apologize.

Thanks to Mr. Rithaniel for the very detailed MCC-style critique. I just wanted to answer a few points.

Quote from Mr. Rithaniel »

So, I believe the idea behind this is that Hakolp is an elemental which takes the form of an immense hydra?

Close. In my head I imagined it as a hydra but made of different natural elements instead of flesh.

The title "Woods Awakened" throws me off a little bit, however. Is Hakolp more of a giant wood elemental or a mixture of different elements?

The latter, definitely. It's true that I've had troubles with its title. I've been thinking about a better one until the deadline, but it didn't come to my mind. As is, I imagined it as the whole forest awakening, with its trees but also the rivers, rocks and mount peaks, but I didn't want to use the word "Forest" because it has a different specific meaning in MTG. I don't know how strong this idea is, but this is what it is.

(Also, the mental image of a head containing mountain ranges for teeth being supported by a tiny tree trunk made me laugh a little.)

It's kinda supposed to. It's meant to be a strange chimera made up of different elements instead of different animals. The image is kinda comical.

I like the power to cost ratios you've establish. Four mana for a 2/2, five mana for a 4/4, six mana for a 6/6, etcetera. The only cost where you might argue that it's power and toughness are too low is when it would be a 2/2 for four mana. Aside from that, all potential cost-to-power-and-toughness ratios seem to be on-point.

Totally intentional. It probably shows that I've thought about rate a lot on this card.

...the cost of 1 in the activated ability...

That's there as a safety valve against potential infinite loops and things like that. I don't know if it's really needed, but I decided to put it in just to be safe. As the saying goes, better safe than sorry.

"It gets" should be "Hakolp gains."

Not as of Dominaria. This is part of the wording changes introduced in that set. What's true is that the verb should be "gains" and not "gets", that's just an unfortunate leftover from an earlier version of the card, where that activated ability also granted a P/T bonus (that requires the verb "gets") which I later removed to both shorten the text and simplify the card, forgetting to change the verb to "gains" as I did. That's my real mistake, the "it" not only isn't wrong according to current editing rules, but it's actually the required wording now.

Why are we using that particular list of keywords?

Mechanics. It's just a list of three abilities found in each of the three colors. No flavor reason.

Not much time now but I wanted to reply to this

Quote from Gerrard"s Mom »

Don't they write that 2+* or did they stop doing that?

Yes, they do and I knew that. It's just that I tried to put it into MSE and 2+*/2+* didn't fit in the P/T box, so I used */* with the reasoning that * stands for a number that's defined in the rules text in whatever way. I agree that's one more strike against my card, but I couldn't think of anything better before the deadline.

On a philosophical note, I feel like your cards sometimes tend to strive too hard to be realistic and safe. I can see boring draft cards by opening up a pack - for the CCL, I want to see something new and fun. I think your technical design skills are fine for designing full sets, but at least in my case I'm more likely to favor cards that showed me a cool new idea but had some problems over cards that are perfectly printable as is but are very close to things we have seen already. I would also err in the "oops Tarmogoyf" direction for power adjustment rather than aim for like 11th pick draft cards. Again, all just my take.

No problem. That's exactly both what I usually aim for and the area of design I'm strongest in. To me, this is actually a compliment, so thank you. I agree that's not the best for the CCL, and it might be a big part of the reason why I usually have a very hard time winning the CCL. I usually come pretty close to the final round, but when I get to it, I almost always lose. I don't remember if I've ever actually won a CCL, I think I did once, but I lost way more final rounds than the one I might have won. I consider the CCL, especially the final round with the public poll, a popularity contest essentially, and I'm not very good at those. I also think that's the reason I feel much better (and have better results when I'm playing) in the MCC, and a big part of what makes me a good (hopefully?) MCC judge. Also, in general, I like to see realistic custom cards in others' designs too. While I have a lot of fun playing Tarmogoyf in Modern, I don't want to see one overpowered card after another in custom card design. But that's just me, my taste, and my character. I like to play it safe, it just comes naturally to me. I should probably risk a bit more. That's just who I am, in real life too.

Quote from Cardz5000 »

I would have loved to see the flavor text attributed to the opening dedication or foreward of one of Larion's new books, it would add just a hint of humor, as well as serve to display how furious Larion is to call out someone in an academic writing.

Wow, I absolutely love this idea, I badly wish I had it. Now I am left thinking about what the title of that book could be. If I advance, that's definitely an idea I might use in a later round. Thank you very much.

Quote from soramaro »

Regarding recent card powerlevels, this feels much more appropirate as mass artifact destruction than Shatterstorm or Creeping Corrosion.

Yes, I thought about exactly those cards to decide the Vandal's mana cost. I'm glad somebody noticed that.

Quote from void_nothing »

Quote from bravelion83 »

The reason I put the "instead" in is that the replacement ability doesn't just prevent damage but it also does other things in addition to that. If the damage prevention were the only effect, no "instead" would be needed.

But... that's the same as the instead-less Swans of Bryn Argoll. If there's ANY damage prevention in the replacement effect it becomes redundant. Zemoo is right.

True. Someone once said you learn something every day. This is what I learned today. Thanks for making me notice.

Quote from Zemoo »

I also totally missed the connection to Skyraker Giant.

It appears you weren't the only one. I knew it was kind of an obscure reference, it came up when I searched Gatherer for monored cards with reach and the idea of making a mirror immediately hit me. If I hadn't searched Gatherer, I probably wouldn't have come up with the mirroring idea at all.

RE Sentinel...

Rules text is certainly what matters most, but mana cost is important too. Usually, I always think about it when designing custom cards and I try to make it the most realistic it can be. In the Sentinel's case, I willingly took a risk pushing it because of it being mythic. Maybe I just pushed too much.

If we were really working for WotC no one would actually be demerited for an interesting card that was undercosted, they would just change the cost and the end product would be better for the design.

This is a very true point, and something I think about too sometimes.

You could even submit a note with the card e.g. "Might be too good at 5 maybe should be a 5BG 4/5." I don't see many people submitting notes with their cards, though I usually have a ton of my own notes, other versions, etc. Does anybody else think critiques would be more interesting if we had notes in this manner?

In the MCC you're supposed to present your card as a finished product that speaks for itself, so no notes are allowed and judging revolves around all aspects of the card. In the CCL, this is something we can think about.
I too usually have notes and sometimes multiple versions, there is nothing wrong with that and in fact they're kind of needed when you design a card. I just keep them in my MSE files and don't post them.

It probably got more points from me thinking, "that is a sweet, flavorful, line of text for a splashy Mythic" fwiw.

That was essentially what I was going for, so I'm glad you saw it that way.

Also RE: Poultergeist's Facade, I don't think there should be an "Instead" in that ability? ...

The reason I put the "instead" in is that the replacement ability doesn't just prevent damage but it also does other things in addition to that. If the damage prevention were the only effect, no "instead" would be needed.

Quote from Zemoo »

I think there is a typo in the flavor text? ...

Gilt-Leaf Sentinel:Seems very strong

Quote from Gerrard"s Mom »

Not content as long as there are wings in the sky?
The Sentinel is just oppressive...

A couple notes on my cards:
- Skybreaker Giant was meant to be a mirror to (or pumped version of) Skyraker Giant, and the card name, the upshift in rarity and the swapping of gender were all supposed to be hints to that. The flavor text is supposed to be a mirror too, what it meant was that he goes after flying things and he won't be happy as long as he still sees something that flies. He wants to see the sky empty of anything that flies, and he's willing to even "break the sky" to achieve that. If it were written in Italian the last part would be a negative sentence, in fact check out the Italian version of that card: "...finché la sua testa NON sarà...". In Italian, "finché" is "until" and "non" is the word that makes the verb negative. In the English version there is no "not" after "until" to make the subordinate sentence negative. On my card, I had doubts about whether in English the one after "until" needed to be an affirmative or negative sentence and I might have gone for the wrong one. This use of "until" in English has always bugged me.
- As my first two cards were a bit on the simple side, I wanted something splashy for my last one, but still without being too complex. Having a powerful effect triggering on etb, attack and dies felt like an original idea to me and exactly the kind of splashiness I was looking for. It's intentionally mythic to try to make up for its power. We have a history of very powerful and undercosted mythics in real Magic. That's what was going on in my head as I designed it. I thought about it being a 3-for-1 at least, but I figured out that if it were to be printed for real and testing (which I have not done) shows that it's too powerful even as a mythic, the mana cost would just be raised accordingly.

Quote from Rocco »

Results for Rounds 1 & 2 may be delayed until tomorrow evening. I'm experiencing a sudden medical anomaly. I don't believe it's dangerous, but I can't concentrate on scoring at all right now.

Apologies.

Take care of yourself, that comes first. I hope you'll get well as soon as possible.

Quote from Exodus87 »

The wording should definitely be "As an additional cost to cast Shed Blood, sacrifice a creature", since the spell does nothing without it.

I don't have any problem with your critique and I'll gladly take the second place in your top 3, but I just wanted to point out that the wording is actually completely intentional. It's to prevent you from losing the creature if the spell doesn't resolve for any reason. I wanted to avoid the feel-bad moment of something like Fling being countered and you losing the creature anyway. You might have a point that the "you may" should not be there though.

Quote from void_nothing »

Your submissions are due Saturday, June 8, 23:59 EST.

This should be July 8th, not June.

Anyway, I just checked it now as I'm not playing for June, and this challenge is totally crazy! (I mean it in a positive way ) It looks like a lot of fun, but the difficulty is through the roof! And I thought last month's final with me and Flatline designing for custom planes was already crazy... that's nothing compared to this! In these last two months void_nothing has really amazed me with their final rounds! Terrific job as a host! Bravo!

Quote from Flatline »

I continue to think that making a top 3 mandatory, but crits voluntary, is a compromise that comes the closest to solving the issues at hand. ... Top 3's are necessary for the competition to continue, whereas crits are icing on the cake.

Just +1'ing this. I just read the recent discussion (let's ignore how bad the tones were, I'd really appreciate people calming down and remembering all this is just about a game...) and this perfectly summarizes how I feel too. I wouldn't mind trying this and seeing how it goes.

No problem, Flatline. I followed those discussions closely behind the shadows and I would have definitely intervened if I thought they were influencing the outcome. I chose to wait until after the poll deadline to explain my submission (I still have to, I think I'll do it after I'm done with my bracket for the June MCC), but that's just my own choice and in no way meant to refrain you from answering people's opinions about your cards. All is fine! Also, thank you for the congratulations!

Thanks everyone for the congratulations. I didn't expect to win the MCC and the CCL in back to back months. It was an awesome final, both in the sense of the challenge and the competition from Flatline, who is just one of my favorite designers around here, so the appreciation goes both ways. I think we both strived to make our best designs and I think it showed. I will share my thought process for my submissions but I don't have the time to do it now. Expect a rather long post about it later tonight.

Quote from Flatline »

OK, I think I'm finally done. I just got a chance to go over the source material again for quite a while, and I have changed my cards significantly. Thanks again for the extension void_nothing, and thank you to bravelion for being the cool dude that he is. This has been an an awesome challenge. I really do hope people take the time to take a look at source material for the cards. It's actually a lot of fun.

I think I'm done too, I can't really think of any improvement to make to my cards that I haven't already made, so let's go! I agree about the challenge being awesome, one of the best I've ever seen. It was really fun. Amazing work, void_nothing! Now may the best one win.