I'm not GMom but in the past when we do challenges that reference earlier challenges, if you miss a round you just post a card in the new round and say something like, "If I were in round 1 my card would have been this" and use that as your constraint for the second
Yeah, like a hoser I designed my design in like fifteen minutes on two hours of sleep because I just didn't want to skip a CCL round. Mistakes were made!
re certain comments on my entry:
The following don't especially matter for the purposes of CCL because my card should be eliminated from the running this round anyway, but let's talk about this.
The challenge asks us, "An ideal design will highlight new possibilities opened up by the color extension."
So in this light, I think it's pretty silly to insist on "bounce lands" as a Moonfolk identity mechanic, for a number of reasons:
- It's pretty obvious that "land bounce" exists in the context of its block to support wisdom (i.e. "more cards in hand matters"). Wisdom is a Kamigawa block mechanic and there's no reason to assume that a block that returns Moonfolk would return wisdom also.
- Land bounce is clearly a blue mechanic, which isn't what's being asked for in the challenge.
- Most humanoid species creature types don't have a mechanical identity that narrow, and types introduced with a narrow identity (cf. Kor from Rath to Zendikar and beyond) are widened upon return.
Land-bounce is an unrepeatable identity that can't be extended into other colors meaningfully, so it can't be the identity that's being extended. So if we eliminate island-bounce, we're left with small flying humanoids who are nerdy and associated with the moon, which is like...plenty of identity IMO.
So I went back to the flavor: Moonfolk are a reference to the 'rabbit in the moon' legend that apparently exists in East Asia and some parts of South America. In China, the rabbit's said to be making immortality medicine, so I reenvisioned a Chinese-inspired Moonfolk subtribe who are associated with alchemy, and returned the divinity counter as a reference to the setting their kinfolk hailed from.
Again, the card's eliminated anyway, but I think we should be thoughtful about how tribes are being extended, and what's reasonable to expect to be retained and what's not.
I think there's a couple of issues here and we should have explicit ways of preventing those issues in the future:
1. It's not explicit and unambiguous which parts of the entry are meant to be judged.
2. There is some mismatch in the challenge between what is asked for and what is needed for an entry to be judged.
And here's what I think about each:
1. I feel like this is an error on the poster's part; for my own response I judged based on card 2 as recommended, but (as you can see in my feedback) the primary thrust of my judging was on the part of the entry that was actually novel and difficult, i.e. the definition of the supertype and associated rules. I would possibly have deranked the entry if the card chosen was quite bad, but at least for my judgement it was sufficient.
Still it would be preferable in future if participants were to separate the entry from any kind of like, context material, and this kind of feeds into my next thoughts, which are:
2. Reading the challenge strictly, an entry that exactly fits the requirements is just a card with a new supertype. There's no requirement for explanation or context.
We implicitly understand that if we're adding new rules, we must specify what the new rules are, but I think it'd be beneficial to be a little bit more explicit about what content is in a minimum or maximum entry when it doesn't seem obvious—and both contest leaders and participants can work together to make sure this is the case, we don't have to lay all the weight on one shoulder.
For my part I struggled with what exactly to include in my entry as well—the minimum explanation of Signature seems to have misled people to think it's a mechanic for a supplemental format like Commander, which is not specified anywhere in my entry. I ended up where I did as kind of a compromise between the minimal "card and explanation of mechanic" and "that stuff plus an anticipatory FAQ" which felt awkward and strange.
You can think of a supertype as a mechanical template that can be applied regardless of type although both 'world' and 'legendary' are only applicable to permanents (which isn't great) and tribal is an awkward trick.
Snow is the best example of an existing supertype because its distribution isn't limited in any way.
I appreciate the design you were trying to accomplish with this card, but unfortunately Suspend is a sorcery-speed ability and so you can't Suspend Forbidding Arts in response to anything. The only thing I can think of to adapt is to change the suspend trigger to a delayed trigger along the lines of "When you suspend Forbidding Arts, the next time an opponent would cast a spell this turn, counter that spell." but as it is, it unfortunately doesn't work.
No, this is wrong. See the CR:
702.61a Suspend is a keyword that represents three abilities. The first is a static ability that functions while the card with suspend is in a player’s hand. The second and third are triggered abilities that function in the exile zone. “Suspend N—[cost]” means “If you could begin to cast this card by putting it onto the stack from your hand, you may pay [cost] and exile it with N time counters on it. This action doesn’t use the stack,” and “At the beginning of your upkeep, if this card is suspended, remove a time counter from it,” and “When the last time counter is removed from this card, if it’s exiled, play it without paying its mana cost if able. If you can’t, it remains exiled. If you cast a creature spell this way, it gains haste until you lose control of the spell or the permanent it becomes.”
Please indicate on the mannequin where it says "sorcery."