But first Thank you Blutsau and Parabola01 for your devotion in making this thread what it is (over 10,000 views, wow!).
Ok my idea... I want your 'yea' or 'nea' on it.
Since I joined this thread only in the last 2 weeks, I of course, would find it a shame that it just disapear. As I had mentionned earlier, I also would be happy to offer my services as a judge. My only complaint with being a full-time judge is that I wouldn't be able to participate in the contest myself for obvious impartiality reasons; this is probably the same reason why most people here would think twice about being a judge (as a matter of fact I had asked myself; what kind of decks would Blutsau and Parabola01 make... if they only could).
My idea is this:
Anybody can judge... Simple no?
OK, let me explain a bit...
Anybody can judge; have some free time? Please give scores from 1 to 25. Can't because exams are up? Having relationship problems? Work's tying you down? Hey that's ok, we'll see ya next round...
There would be some rules of course.
1) If you post a judgement then you must provide a rating for all the decks in that round.
2) Everybody must use the same scoring method (we have to agree on this method: See post #361 on page 25).
3) If a judge also has a deck posted in the contest for a particular week, then he must provide a rating only for decks other than his own that week. That way, nobody else can cry foul, but also nobody is denied any deckbuilding fun !!
4) Scores are averaged out, substracting the lowest and highest note for each deck beforehand (Hey just like the Olympics!).
5) The winner of each week would still submit the card for the following week.
The reason I think this will work, is because I've come to realize that any player can honestly figure out which decks are great, which are mediocre and which are in between. Y'know, when you get to see a good decklist and think: "Man, wish I'd thought of THAT!"
Furthermore, If you want to judge, but don't think you have time to test the decks properly and so on, don't worry; post scores anyway. I also believe that most players have the innate sense of knowing how a deck will perform just by looking at it, and the more judges we have, the more reliable the results will be (ever heard of the wisdom of crowds? or how the audience as a whole was always right on who wants to be a millionnaire?)
I also know this can work. We almost always submit a deck in the first few days and then everybody is twiddling their thumbs waiting for the judging, checking every day, posting elsewhere, flamin' (read: counseling) some newbie with a godawful list ;), etc. So, time can't be that big of an issue for all of us, all the time; we have an average of 8 to 10 decks per round, if only 3 or 4 contestants post judgements, we're in business!
Now, we probably need a head judge in this system of course; to compile the results, edit the thread, police the judges if need be :rolleyes:... The head judge can still participate in any given round, but if he does, maybe his restriction should then be that he can't judge at all during that same round, in the interest of fairness of course.
I suggest that Blutsau should be that Head judge for his 10th and final week. That will surely be sweet poetic justice, as he will be able to finally participate in his own contest, if it's his wish of course (share your deckbuilding wisdom, do! ).
Then as his final act (before the army steals his soul), he will arrange it with the mods and give the reigns of the thread to the new head judge for the 11th round and the ones to follow (call it the next season).
We can still crown a winner for weeks 1 to 10 (1st season) but I would prefer for the following season that the scoring tally work with averages. The final scoresheet at the end of the next 10 rounds should include only those who have "played" in at least 50% of the rounds (to prevent a last minute rookie stealing the show ). Also this system won't discourage anyone from coming back if they've missed a couple of weeks because of other obligations.
Finally, I offer my services as Head judge in the footsteps of Blutsau, pending your approval of this system of course.
Whatever we decide, the goal is to keep this thread going for the pleasure of all.
Primary and only casual rule: "any rule that is fine for the most part of the playgroup, is a fine rule". So any further thread with: "if somebody uses/does .... in a casual game, is it ethical/ok?", read the answer above.
- Being a "Johnny/Spike" means you like self-torture. You win often in casual, so everybody hates you; you loose often in competitive, so you hate yourself.
Asking out a girl is like trying to cast a first turn Necropotence. Sometimes the other player will have the Force of Will to say no. You shouldn't let that stop you from trying it.
For the judging requirements, although for the most part the guidlines in post #2 are good, I found it easy to confuse Creativity with Originality - if anyone feels the same way, I think we should improve them before we settle on the consistent judging criteria.
And judging is intensive, perhaps we should have 2 permanent Head judges that rotate each week with 1-3 guest judges - that way the scores will average out. I also don't mind letting everyone judge who wants to, but it comes down to how much critque/comments we are happy with, otherwise, we can just make do with the score with no explanation. I personally prefer a little feedback from the judges, but hey, majority rules and I'm fine if it doesn't work out that way.
As for the week 9 judging, I'd say Blutsau has the final say.
@ Arc-logger: Systematic judging, schedules for rotating judges, proper consultation for card selection, etc; this would be well and good in a professional system; i.e. a "real" league with real prize stuctures and so on, but this is just for fun and nobody is getting paid for this.
Magic is not our bread and butter, it's just a hobby and we all have other obligations, I for one, think it should remain just a hobby. Having a fixed system means you have to get really comitted people who will adhere to it's constraints. I don't think this would work anymore. I wouldn't want us to redo the system 4 weeks from now because the judges can't take the time anymore; I want to have a system that will be simple and self-sustaining.
My system would be 1 head judge only. The winner Pm's a new card for the contest to the head judge and they discuss it, finding alternatives if need be and then the contest is launched, people post decks for 4 days, then a message from the head judge announces that judging can now begin, 3 days are given. Deck makers can now turn their attention to deck judging, they are encouraged to provide scoring but are not obligated to (pretty sure there will be more than enough volunteers as the burden of making the thread work is now transfered on the participants themselves; that's the self-sustain part).
Judging doesn't have to be time-consuming; you can be as thourough with testing as you like to be (like I'll probably be), but if your time or patience is in short supply, then just read all the decklists and provide scoring for all of them based on how you think they will perform. The point is that it's not that important, it's just for fun.
I conceed that this system is a bit more chaotic, but so are our lives. I believe the kinks will cancel each other out if: a) we have a standard system of point allocation and b) more people post scores.
@ Kiwoli: Seeing as you're the last person to guest-judge, you probably have a very valid point, having just experienced judging yourself.
Maybe we can mash Creativity and Originality in one category instead.
I have an idea for a new points system... Also "fun" was too subjective a category in my mind. A deck is fun as long as it does what it's supposed to.
Something like this, maybe?
Creativity/Originality: 0 to 5 points
How creative and original is your deck. Effectiveness/Card adherence: 0 to 5 points
How well does it use the selected card Synnergy/Tuning: 0 to 5 points
How well do the cards combine in the deck; elegance and card selection. Power/Capacity to win: 0 to 5 points
Can the deck deliver the goods? Interaction/Protection: 0 to 5 points
how well does the deck interact and deal with other decks.
Format/Thematics: up to 2 points bonus (can't go over 25)
Primary and only casual rule: "any rule that is fine for the most part of the playgroup, is a fine rule". So any further thread with: "if somebody uses/does .... in a casual game, is it ethical/ok?", read the answer above.
- Being a "Johnny/Spike" means you like self-torture. You win often in casual, so everybody hates you; you loose often in competitive, so you hate yourself.
Creativity/Originality: 0 to 5 points
How creative and original is your deck. Effectiveness/Card adherence: 0 to 5 points
How well does it use the selected card Synergy/Tuning: 0 to 5 points
How well do the cards combine in the deck; elegance and card selection. Power/Winning capacity: 0 to 5 points
Can the deck deliver the goods? Interactivity/Protection: 0 to 5 points
how well does the deck interact and deal with other decks.
Format/Thematics: up to 2 points bonus (can't go over 25)
I think that's pretty close. Two in particular I think are improvements.
Effectiveness/Card adherence: 0 to 5 points
How well does it use the selected card
--------------
I am strongly in favor of "How well does it use the selected card" over "How important is the selected card to the deck."
In my personal opinion, this contest is a lot more fun if it's a contest to see who can use the card the best, not if its a contest to see who can build the deck most reliant on the card. Fundamentally, I think part of that comes from my unwillingness to build a deck that is reliant on a single card, since there's no way to guarantee I'll see it every game. I'd rather build a deck that takes the most advantage of the card when I get it than a deck that needs it to win.
This is especially true when talking about instants or sorceries like Surprise Deployment. In the event you draw it, you're only going to get to use it once. If you're reliant on that to win, what happens if it gets counterspelled? Game over. Instead, build a deck that is set up to take maximum advantage of Surprise Deployment when it shows up.
Interactivity/Protection: 0 to 5 points
how well does the deck interact and deal with other decks.
-------------
I also strongly like the combination of Interaction and Protection here. "How well equipped is this deck to play against something" is completely different from "How many protection cards does this have." If you're requiring a lot of diverse protection, say goodbye to monocolored decks, especially say . . monoblack. OTOH, if you've got a black deck that is designed to have all of it's things destroyed or sacrificed and take a lot of stuff with it, it won't have a lot of "protection" but it'll be completely equipped to interact with another deck quite well.
Leaving this category flexible can only be a good thing, IMO.
Format/Thematics: up to 2 points bonus (can't go over 25)
-------------
One other note on format, I think if we're going to give format bonuses, we need an official list of accepted formats and what the requirements for those formats are. I know I don't know a lot of the format stuff, and I'm sure there are others as well. And you have format disagreements, like Blutsau and I had this particular round. It didn't end up mattering because my deck was Tribal either way, but the one line description I was given on what constituted a Tribal deck apparently wasn't comprehensive enough. I think if we're giving bonuses for format, it needs to be clear how you can acquire that bonus.
NOTE: I'm not complaining about the Tribal issue this turn, it's just an example
Format/Thematics: up to 2 points bonus (can't go over 25)
I think it's best like this actually. We don't need to over-complicate by listing all the situations that will or won't warrant points in that category.
I would prefer to leave judgement to each and every one posting scores to give either 0, 1 or 2 points bonus.
So it should be up to the deckmaker to make his case as to why he should receive points in this category, and up to the judges to agree or disagree on the merits of his arguments. For example a posted deck may be tribal, but if the deckmaker doesn't talk about it or explain that part of it, then no points should be given.
@ Kiwoli again: I forgot to address the commenting part. I too would be more comfortable giving at least minimal explanation for the scores I give out and as a contestant I would be happier if they were provided.
But also since we would want the most judging possible, I don't think we can force this.
Just maybe to state this obvious rule; if you give scores without any comments, you would be expected to provide some, should any contestant ask for them.
Primary and only casual rule: "any rule that is fine for the most part of the playgroup, is a fine rule". So any further thread with: "if somebody uses/does .... in a casual game, is it ethical/ok?", read the answer above.
- Being a "Johnny/Spike" means you like self-torture. You win often in casual, so everybody hates you; you loose often in competitive, so you hate yourself.
I think it's best like this actually. We don't need to over-complicate by listing all the situations that will or won't warrant points in that category.
I would prefer to leave judgement to each and every one posting scores to give either 0, 1 or 2 points bonus.
So it should be up to the deckmaker to make his case as to why he should receive points in this category, and up to the judges to agree or disagree on the merits of his arguments. For example a posted deck may be tribal, but if the deckmaker doesn't talk about it or explain that part of it, then no points should be given.
@ Kiwoli again: I forgot to address the commenting part. I too would be more comfortable giving at least minimal explanation for the scores I give out and as a contestant I would be happier if they were provided.
But also since we would want the most judging possible, I don't think we can force this.
Just maybe to state this obvious rule; if you give scores without any comments, you would be expected to provide some, should any contestant ask for them.
How do you handle disagreements on format then? Let's take my last deck as an example. Let's imagine for a minute that there are only 2 BoPs in the deck, so it isn't a valid Bird Tribal deck. I feel that it is a Shapeshifter Tribal deck, since there are 20 cards with the subtype Shapeshifter in it. Blutsau feels that it is not, because there are not 20 creatures with the subtype Shapeshifter in it. Lets say some other random judge agrees with me. Am I going to get Tribal points from some judges and not all of them?
I'm willing to go halfway on this, because you do have a point about trying to nail down everything we're going to handle. How about creating a list of formats and the requirements for that format that we accept, but not call it an exclusive list? So we give a quick rundown of the most common formats (MYOS, Tribal, Highlander, etc) and how we're going to judge those decks. Since none of these formats are Officially sanctioned by WotC, there aren't universally accepted rules on these, and I think we should have some sort of standard we're judging by.
On another note, I would also strongly prefer that if you're going to judge, you give some sort of quick comment. I think kiwoli's comments on this last round were sufficient, and if you're going to take the time to "judge" each deck, you should be able to write a single sentence about each score you're giving out. You don't need to write a book, just a quick "Braids of Fire isn't very original in an Upwelling deck," for example, to justify a low creativity score.
How do you handle disagreements on format then? Let's take my last deck as an example. Let's imagine for a minute that there are only 2 BoPs in the deck, so it isn't a valid Bird Tribal deck. I feel that it is a Shapeshifter Tribal deck, since there are 20 cards with the subtype Shapeshifter in it. Blutsau feels that it is not, because there are not 20 creatures with the subtype Shapeshifter in it. Lets say some other random judge agrees with me. Am I going to get Tribal points from some judges and not all of them?
Yes you would, and I don't see a problem with that; usually when two sides argue, the truth is always somewhere in the middle :D.
But seriously, this is only for a point or two; here's how I would judge this:
Example A) Contestant: "hey and it's all commons, so I should get points for submitting a Peasant deck..."
Me: "Yes, 1 point for your effort in matching your deck to a particular format, next..."
Example B) Contestant: "What makes this deck so cool is not only is it human tribal, but notice how they're all bikini-babes, gotta love it".
Me: "Well... gosh let me see, Wow, that is very cool indeed, 2 full points for you sir..."
You get my meaning of course; 1 point for format (objective rating; for format adherence); 1 point for theme (subjective rating; for aesthetics, storytelling).
Now if you want to build a list of acceptable formats and define judging criteria for that 1 point, then it's fine :rolleyes:, I'm just going so sit this one out and say that we'll use your list as a base, post it when you've made it so everybody can see it (for the record, I probaly would have given you the shapeshifter format point for your previous deck, cause i'm just a very generous guy...).
Also it seems the majority is in agreement that minimal comments should be given when judging, that's good.
But now I think we need to get on with the results from week 9, and start week 10 and close the season otherwise this thread is gonna stall real quick. I guess for the final contest of the season, it will have to be 2 judges only since Parabola01 is out?... Blutsau? How about it?
Primary and only casual rule: "any rule that is fine for the most part of the playgroup, is a fine rule". So any further thread with: "if somebody uses/does .... in a casual game, is it ethical/ok?", read the answer above.
- Being a "Johnny/Spike" means you like self-torture. You win often in casual, so everybody hates you; you loose often in competitive, so you hate yourself.
we have a winner fdtori - with a close half point more than JeffDerek. you have 24h to PM me a card, else I choose one. (mind that people want a Conflux card or I'll get lynched ;))
If you want a list of formats I'd recommend you our member shoe's site, unless you find something better.
If fdtoris idea of 'massive multi judging' is the way the contests goes, it will average itself out anyways.
If you stick to 4 judges or the person really wants that 1 point: I'd say it's up to the headjudge.
Last card for the final round (#10) of season 1 has been chosen.
- It's a card from Conflux. (you got what you wanted)
- It fits the mechanical theme of Conflux. (WotC " " they " - us playing with their themes)
- According to WotC you all should love it, because it's soooo awesome by default. (I got what I wanted - not a single complaint)
@ mods: excuses for the double post I'm aware it's bad but people don't want edits when they subscribed. feel free to infract/warn me - I'll not get to three in the next 3 weeks anyways =P
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Each reality is but the dream of another, and each sleeper a god unknowing.
We define the boundaries of reality; they don't define us.
OK, so the mana curve could use a bit of smoothing out, but the basic principal is to get the child out as soon as possible and hit with it as much as possible, not worrying if it gets destroyed. Between Sek'Kuar, Summoner's Egg, Sprouting Thrinax, and Saffi Eriksdotter, there are 14 cards that would give me another creature or two to keep going with, while my opponent would probably have nothing.
I should be able to win by beatdown even if the Child gets RFG'd instead of destroyed, there are some decent sized creatures+Might of Alara in the deck. I won't be able to search for Basic land if I get PtE'd, but I do have all 5 basic land types so Might of Alara should work well. Incidentally, it's theoretically possible to have all 5 land types on turn 3 with this mana base.
I'll tweak it over the next week, but I wanted the first draft in
There are a lot of themes here, creature recurrsion via Volrath's Stronghold and the Persist ability. Then there is the brutal Flash + Child of Alara thats an instant speed Wrath of God on roids. With that combo, mix in the creature recurrsion via persist and this makes for a brutal deck, also dont forget the indestructible stuff.
5-colour smive-colour! This deck ignores the stupid 5 symbols in the upper right hand corner of the child and just recurs the guy from the yard. Lots and lots of interactions here:
Innocent blood + child = Akroma's Vengeance for B, plus it slows things down early
Doomed Necro + child = surprise board wipe at instant speed, depending on what opponent is doing
Recurring nightmare + child = keep child coming back again and again
Darksteel Gargoyle - your main finisher, survives child activations
Dusk Urchins - a beatstick that draws cards when it dies, and it will die, either from your opponent or your own spells
Oona's prowler + mannequin - combo has been around for a while now, but still very effective
Mindslicer + Oona's blackguard - after mindslicer goes off, blackguard can swing for 3 every turn.
Moonlight bargain - refill hand and graveyard at instant speed
I'm supicious if a "free Judging" will work out that well in the end and tend to favour Arc-Loggers Idea with Rotating Fix Judges (if we find some though).
That's the problem I see with fixed judges. If you have 4 judges with one rotating every 3rd week, that's not going to cut it; bottom line is, I want to be able to participate in this contest if I feel like it, should the round's card tickle my deckbuilding fancy. Also we are at most a dozen people participating, if 3 of those can't post decks, that limits the number ideas being submitted and reduces the value of the thread.
On the other hand you could have a fixed judging system with 4 permanent judges; 1 head judge and 3 rotating judges and you could say that all the judges can post decks.
In such a system though, you'd need to make some kind of schedule, then if a judge can't make it, you need to ask the relief judge to take his place, if he can't, then you're stuck at 2 and if they each post a deck, then it means they only get one score from each other; since they can't rate their own decks. So you say no, this cannot do. So you try to get an extra judge for that one week, etc, etc. It's just harder to manage.
Why not have a system that manages itself, everybody is invited to post judgement, like for instance; 10 participants post decks, then let's say 6 of them post scores, take the low and high score out (taking care of sloppy judgement BTW), average the rest and post the results, easy and simple.
as an aside: I don't think we should uniform the judgings if we're doing the Free Judging. You can't make everyone happy with one system and judging IS work after all so if we allow some personality to blend in people maybe would be more animated to do the work.
Just trying to make life simpler. I get what you are saying though and I agree, but if it might sit better with judges that each use their own system, it certainly does not sit better with some contestants here who have been commenting that we should get a uniform system for many weeks, it just makes sense. Could you imagine any sporting competition where the judges use wildly different systems, like what we've been doing here; with some using timmy/johnny/spike and others using fun/creativity/protection...
We could have the Head Judge (or Head judge Team) supervise the judge criterias in order to execlude absurd Judge Criterias. People who want to judge could make their distribution of the 25 points public in an Blog entry for example in order to prevent flooding here. Then they send a pm to the Head Judge(s) who takes a look at it and also edits the post of current judges for latest round in this thread.
Too much management, too much work, but that's just my opinion :p.
I also want to demour the idea of "emotive judging" (distributing your points without having bothered with the deck). I consider myself an advanced palyer and I am not able to make out all nuances of a deck without having played it/seen it in action. Sure rough errors are easy to spot for everybody but with the high standard of decks here the devil will sit in the detail..
I wouldn't call analyzing a decklist without testing: "not bothering with a deck". Taking a hard look means looking at a deck, seeing card selection and interaction, reading what the constestant says about his deck and visualizing if the deck is realistic and is built to actually accomplish what the deckbuilder says it can... Nuances schmuances! Even after I've built my decks, tested them and played them, I still don't know all there is to know about them and I am always surprised by a neat interaction I hadn't noticed before.
Fishbowling decks on MWS, will not give you a grand view into a deck's soul, just give you a basic idea if the manabase is ok, if the curve comes out right, the draw is good, etc. In fact I'd be pretty surprised if all the past judges really tested all the decks in true 1-on-1 games; didn't Blutsau once say: "If you get me to proxy your deck, you are close to 25" ? (sorry to put you on the spot).
So yes, there will be mistakes and slip-ups, look at the past weeks, even in a fixed judge system it happens, players noticed a judging error, mentionned it, and the judge corrected the score. There's no reason this cannot be the same in a multi-judge system, and even if mistakes happen and are not corrected, you remove the high and low score for the points average as a double safeguard.
Don't get me wrong I dont demand hours of playtesting from the judges but I belive that people (at least I know I) would probably be disappointed if their judgements are just a sloppy "random" distribution of points.
That's probably never going to happen anyway, seeing as how everyone here is saying that they would not do this...
Anyways just my 2cents here, and I can see you ignoring at least my last point for the sake of the contests survival. Assuming from my own point of view and experience i don't suppose an assault on the judge seats.
Hey I'm not going to ignore anybody's views, so far it's pretty even as to what system people want; a couple have agreed that multi judging is the way to go, but others such as yourself and Arc-logger have shown doubts and would prefer fixed judging. I will rally to the majority of course, heck, in the end we'll probably have a hybridized version anyway.
Don't diss yourself... Seeing as you are a past winner yourself (I'm guessing that bragging rights are included in the prize right?) and that you have participated in a lot of the rounds, I always value your opinions on the forums and I think you would make a fine judge :smileup:.
Now back to this week's contest, I will be judging by the criteria I mentionned in post # 361.
Nice to see some aggro-control decks! Combo decks are fun to imagine and build, not always fun to play against, have a good contest everyone.
Primary and only casual rule: "any rule that is fine for the most part of the playgroup, is a fine rule". So any further thread with: "if somebody uses/does .... in a casual game, is it ethical/ok?", read the answer above.
- Being a "Johnny/Spike" means you like self-torture. You win often in casual, so everybody hates you; you loose often in competitive, so you hate yourself.
I'd like to again mention how nice it would be to have everyone judging by the same criteria. I just need something to work towards. Just 'build the best deck and we'll judge it' doesn't really work. Build the best deck that . . what? Wins tournaments? Is fun? Tickles my Johnny sense? I can build a good, well rounded deck that wins tournaments and has no protection whatsoever, and it would score low if there's a high protection value given.
the point is to keep blowing everything up by making the child of alara go to the graveyard, and attack with the svogthos and the sapling , which do not get blown up.
hopefully the time of needs and the land searches will allow you to play the child of alara quickly.
Wow, i haven't visited this thread in quite a good time, lots of tgings have changed, i don't even undestand yet the new judment system, anyway, here's my deck:
The idea here is to destroy the children via flash, mask (that can fetch another children!!) tainted aether, intent or even through normal combat and then get benefits from your enchantments, feast will give you a good amount of lives, staff can kill your opponent, and the sands can make sure your opponent is out of the game, the deck has also some cards that give creatures to your opponent in case you need it, and also has a cauldron of souls in case you have tainted aether and you think one time isn't enough.
hah, up to six decks, cool! I was starting to think I'd have it too easy ;).
Also now, I don't think we ought to change the judging for this the final round of season 1. We can be just 2 judges, like the previous week. I then suggest that we bonify the points on a pro rata basis for these 2 weeks to make it as though 3 judges had actually scored; more fair for the season totals IMO. How's that with you Blutsau?
Then maybe the contest should have a short off-season (say, a couple of weeks maybe?), then the new head judge can launch a new thread for season 2, explaining the rules change (if any).
Primary and only casual rule: "any rule that is fine for the most part of the playgroup, is a fine rule". So any further thread with: "if somebody uses/does .... in a casual game, is it ethical/ok?", read the answer above.
- Being a "Johnny/Spike" means you like self-torture. You win often in casual, so everybody hates you; you loose often in competitive, so you hate yourself.
round 10 is closed.
fdtori and I will judge this round.
the points people earned in 'two judge rounds' will be multiplied by 1.5. The official winner of 'season 1' will be the person with the highest total of points earned from R1-R10.
I'll also make non-official lists to determine ranks in other ways.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Each reality is but the dream of another, and each sleeper a god unknowing.
We define the boundaries of reality; they don't define us.
Don't take it personaly, this is just business, eh?
Creativity/originality: 0 to 5 points How creative and original is your deck.
2 points...
Straight Aggro and Using the Child for what it's designed to do, be a threat and blow up stuff by the wayside, not terribly original. Effectiveness/Card Adherence: 0 to 5 points How well does it use the selected card.
2 points...
A bit of deal-with-me-or-not-I-don't-care-either-way feeling in here, you get some points for trying to break the symmetry with your creature selection.
The Child is powerful for sure, but here I don't feel it's needed that much, It's just a trampling beatstick and I'm not even sure I would want it to die. Using a card well in my mind also means trying to break open all the possibilities of the card. Synnergy/Tuning: 0 to 5 points How well do the cards combine in the deck; elegance and card selection.
2 points... Sylvan Bounty and Harrow do nothing in this deck (no basics). Emblazoned Golem ??? Why would I want to tie up mana for this in a Child of Alara deck?
I don't really like Summoner's Egg here, if you don't have the Child in hand, it's a dead card as I probably wouldn't bother with any other creature you have listed. Legacy Weapon? (domain throw-in?) Wouldn't a dying Child amount to the same effect? And much more?
No tutoring, no draw, no recyclability whatsoever.
You also lost points for having no way to blow the Child up yourself (except wasting your own Vindicates) so you are very succeptible to RFG spells. Power/Capacity to win: 0 to 5 points Can the deck deliver the goods?
3.5 points...
Straight aggro strategy. The deck can win. Might of Alara is a 1 mana +5/+5 most of the time. Sprouting Thrinax is a good choice especially with Child. Birds can mean a lucky 2nd turn Thrinax and a very lucky 3rd turn Child with the Ingot, but that's about it. Interaction/Protection: 0 to 5 points how well does the deck interact and deal with other decks.
2 points...
Not as well as you may have hoped. The deck feels like it was made to fishbowl, nothing to do except summon creatures and attack, not a very reactive deck. Format/Thematics: up to 2 points bonus
0 points (nothing here)
TOTAL: 11.5
Overall, a deck that really should have been revisited before the deadline...
Creativity/originality: 0 to 5 points How creative and original is your deck.
2.5 points...
Again Child Aggro that tries to break the symmetry... A bit better this time. You speak of persist but you only have 4 critters with the ability in there... A persisting Child would have been so cool but you chose not to explore that space. Effectiveness/Card Adherence: 0 to 5 points How well does it use the selected card.
3 points...
This deck as opposed to the previous one, cares a bit more about trying to use the child as a tool. Synnergy/Tuning: 0 to 5 points How well do the cards combine in the deck; elegance and card selection.
3 points...
I like Epochrasite in here, a bit slow to benefit but it's still elegant.
Flash is ok, but it means holding on to a Child in hand, as it's no use flashing it early.
Lots of tutors and some draw and recyclability. Woodfall Primus; Is it me or that guy doesn't do much coming back from a Child's wrath? Power/Capacity to win: 0 to 5 points Can the deck deliver the goods?
3 points... Thornling is obviously very good in here, nothing much else to say. Interaction/Protection: 0 to 5 points how well does the deck interact and deal with other decks.
3 points...
Again relying solely on the Child for dealing with opponent's stuff, but with the tutors and some sac outlets it'll be more reliable. Format/Thematics: up to 2 points bonus
0 points (nothing here)
TOTAL: 14.5 points
This deck needs some additional tuning, and a bit of rethinking.
Creativity/Originality: 0 to 5 points How creative and original is your deck.
4.5 points...
Monoblack domain? I like. Aggro-control-combo-lock mish-mash that's surprisingnly well done; sign me up. Effectiveness/Card adherence: 0 to 5 points How well does it use the selected card.
4.5 points...
Good usage, you can beat with it or go control-combo almost at your whim; using all the posibilities of the card. Synnergy/Tuning: 0 to 5 points How well do the cards combine in the deck; elegance and card selection.
4.5 points...
Almost perfect, you had Spinal Graft in there before and I had to laugh at the beauty of that one but choosing Makeshift Mannequin instead is a very nice touch and can't be disputed.
Playing it, I just kept wishing for some Dark Rituals in here though; I wouldn't have put the Darksteel Gargoyle in here, once you get Recurring Nightmare with one Child in play and one in the grave it's basicaly game over. DusK Urchins; nice. Mindslicer; thumbs up.
Any reason you were not using Phyrexian Tower? Power/Capacity to win: 0 to 5 points Can the deck deliver the goods?
4.5 points...
Oh yes, starting with very aggressively curved critters you can go aggro all the way or finish it up with a nice combo lock win Interaction/Protection: 0 to 5 points how well does the deck interact and deal with other decks.
4 points
Very well for monoblack, though you can't get more than four since you are vulnerable to non-creature permanents, a few tutors would have helped you here. Format/Thematics: up to 2 points bonus
0 points (nothing here)
TOTAL: 22 points
Very solid entry Hammer!
Creativity/Originality: 0 to 5 points How creative and original is your deck.
4 points...
Again a single color domain! I like the idea of the Child of Alara into Progenitus plan, Nasty! Effectiveness/Card adherence: 0 to 5 points How well does it use the selected card.
4 points...
Good use, lots of ways to benefit from the selected card. Synnergy/Tuning: 0 to 5 points How well do the cards combine in the deck; elegance and card selection.
4.5 points...
I like a lot of Card selection in here, namely Primal Growth, Natural Order and Gamekeeper, very smooth synnergy indeed!
I don't really like Gilt-Leaf Ambush here though, I know what it's there for but it still seems out of place plus you can't manipulate the top of your deck. Power/Capacity to win: 0 to 5 points Can the deck deliver the goods?
4.5 points...
Yes it can. In a kind of BIG, inevitable way. Interaction/Protection: 0 to 5 points how well does the deck interact and deal with other decks.
3.5 points... Gamekeeper can keep attackers at bay, especially in multiplayer. Lure of prey is also nifty for it's instant-speed surprise. But the deck really relies on 6 cards only to counter the opponent's plan. Format/Thematics: up to 2 points bonus
0 points (nothing here)
TOTAL: 20.5 points
A close second place, keep it up!
Creativity/Originality: 0 to 5 points How creative and original is your deck.
2 points...
I get your idea with Svogthos, so you get 2 points for thinking about it but not for the execution of it; 1 Svogthos only??? Effectiveness/Card adherence: 0 to 5 points How well does it use the selected card.
2 points...
Blow up stuff? How will you make the child go to the grave besides attacking or blocking with it?
Don't get me wrong, the Child is crucial (not in a good way) to this deck but again, not using all the possibilities here. Synnergy/Tuning: 0 to 5 points How well do the cards combine in the deck; elegance and card selection.
2 points...
Time of need will get you child, but not Miren which you really need as you can probably cast Child quickly.
Why 4 Genesis, 4 Deadwood Treefolk and 4 Revive? don't you need some creatures in the grave for Svogthos?
Also the deck is missing 3 cards... Power/Capacity to win: 0 to 5 points Can the deck deliver the goods?
1.5 points...
This deck can only win with Child. Svogthos is not going to get very big and any non-damage removal spell will take care of it pronto, and you have no way to recur it besides the one Regrowth.
The deck also doesn't have much of an early game plan besides fetching lands, weenie will crush you. Interaction/Protection: 0 to 5 points how well does the deck interact and deal with other decks.
2 points...
Not very well. Again relying solely on the Child for disruption, you get points only because you can tutor it. Format/Thematics: up to 2 points bonus
0 points... (nothing here)
TOTAL: 9.5
If I was a sports commentator I'd say: "well Mike, I don't know what Anansi had for breakfast, not a very good performance from a past champion, just scratch that one and hope for better next time."
Creativity/Originality: 0 to 5 points How creative and original is your deck.
3 points...
Man I feel bad for you, some good ideas which will get you some leverage but only once each since the Child destroys permanents, if only it would've killed only creatures, then the deck would have been quite the machine! Effectiveness/Card adherence: 0 to 5 points How well does it use the selected card.
2 points...
Not very well since it kills all your hard-earned stuff and you have no way to recur anything. Synnergy/Tuning: 0 to 5 points How well do the cards combine in the deck; elegance and card selection.
2 points...
It would be Elegant if only it worked well, as it is, it's pretty clunky.
Also Mask of the Mimic doesn't work the way you wish, if you choose the child as the copy arget, it will fizzle on resolution and you will get nothing, and the only other targets for it in the deck are the birds and the phantasms, so not exactly broken. Power/Capacity to win: 0 to 5 points Can the deck deliver the goods?
2.5 points...
Well, there's the Child and Dingus Staff combo that can kill, and you can be lucky with your Hunted Phantasm/Burning Sands/Tainted Aether; so yes it can but kind of iffy. Interaction/Protection: 0 to 5 points how well does the deck interact and deal with other decks.
3 points... Wrath of God really helps you here, the child being the only other disruption you have. Format/Thematics: up to 2 points bonus
0 points... (nothing here)
TOTAL: 12.5 points.
A kind of mini-fail, not an epic one. Better luck next time.
Hammer: 22
No Name Maddox: 20.5
urweak: 14.5
Post Affinity: 12.5
Jeff Derek: 11.5
Anansi: 9.5
Primary and only casual rule: "any rule that is fine for the most part of the playgroup, is a fine rule". So any further thread with: "if somebody uses/does .... in a casual game, is it ethical/ok?", read the answer above.
- Being a "Johnny/Spike" means you like self-torture. You win often in casual, so everybody hates you; you loose often in competitive, so you hate yourself.
Overall, a deck that really should have been revisited before the deadline...
Indeed. I was very close to coming back and retracting the entry alltogether. I've been sick all week and never had the energy to do it right. No hard feelings.
But first Thank you Blutsau and Parabola01 for your devotion in making this thread what it is (over 10,000 views, wow!).
Ok my idea... I want your 'yea' or 'nea' on it.
Since I joined this thread only in the last 2 weeks, I of course, would find it a shame that it just disapear. As I had mentionned earlier, I also would be happy to offer my services as a judge. My only complaint with being a full-time judge is that I wouldn't be able to participate in the contest myself for obvious impartiality reasons; this is probably the same reason why most people here would think twice about being a judge (as a matter of fact I had asked myself; what kind of decks would Blutsau and Parabola01 make... if they only could).
My idea is this:
Anybody can judge... Simple no?
OK, let me explain a bit...
Anybody can judge; have some free time? Please give scores from 1 to 25. Can't because exams are up? Having relationship problems? Work's tying you down? Hey that's ok, we'll see ya next round...
There would be some rules of course.
1) If you post a judgement then you must provide a rating for all the decks in that round.
2) Everybody must use the same scoring method (we have to agree on this method: See post #361 on page 25).
3) If a judge also has a deck posted in the contest for a particular week, then he must provide a rating only for decks other than his own that week. That way, nobody else can cry foul, but also nobody is denied any deckbuilding fun !!
4) Scores are averaged out, substracting the lowest and highest note for each deck beforehand (Hey just like the Olympics!).
5) The winner of each week would still submit the card for the following week.
The reason I think this will work, is because I've come to realize that any player can honestly figure out which decks are great, which are mediocre and which are in between. Y'know, when you get to see a good decklist and think: "Man, wish I'd thought of THAT!"
Furthermore, If you want to judge, but don't think you have time to test the decks properly and so on, don't worry; post scores anyway. I also believe that most players have the innate sense of knowing how a deck will perform just by looking at it, and the more judges we have, the more reliable the results will be (ever heard of the wisdom of crowds? or how the audience as a whole was always right on who wants to be a millionnaire?)
I also know this can work. We almost always submit a deck in the first few days and then everybody is twiddling their thumbs waiting for the judging, checking every day, posting elsewhere, flamin' (read: counseling) some newbie with a godawful list ;), etc. So, time can't be that big of an issue for all of us, all the time; we have an average of 8 to 10 decks per round, if only 3 or 4 contestants post judgements, we're in business!
Now, we probably need a head judge in this system of course; to compile the results, edit the thread, police the judges if need be :rolleyes:... The head judge can still participate in any given round, but if he does, maybe his restriction should then be that he can't judge at all during that same round, in the interest of fairness of course.
I suggest that Blutsau should be that Head judge for his 10th and final week. That will surely be sweet poetic justice, as he will be able to finally participate in his own contest, if it's his wish of course (share your deckbuilding wisdom, do!
Then as his final act (before the army steals his soul), he will arrange it with the mods and give the reigns of the thread to the new head judge for the 11th round and the ones to follow (call it the next season).
We can still crown a winner for weeks 1 to 10 (1st season) but I would prefer for the following season that the scoring tally work with averages. The final scoresheet at the end of the next 10 rounds should include only those who have "played" in at least 50% of the rounds (to prevent a last minute rookie stealing the show
Finally, I offer my services as Head judge in the footsteps of Blutsau, pending your approval of this system of course.
Whatever we decide, the goal is to keep this thread going for the pleasure of all.
Keep postin'.
1) I'd love to judge some other decks
2) unified judging criteria = win
Also, a lot of other things you said were awesome, but those two in particular I like.
Does this mean Week 9 is going to be decided based on two judges?
J
My MTGSalvation Cube Page (not always up to date, but sweet pics of my alters)
And judging is intensive, perhaps we should have 2 permanent Head judges that rotate each week with 1-3 guest judges - that way the scores will average out. I also don't mind letting everyone judge who wants to, but it comes down to how much critque/comments we are happy with, otherwise, we can just make do with the score with no explanation. I personally prefer a little feedback from the judges, but hey, majority rules and I'm fine if it doesn't work out that way.
As for the week 9 judging, I'd say Blutsau has the final say.
Magic is not our bread and butter, it's just a hobby and we all have other obligations, I for one, think it should remain just a hobby. Having a fixed system means you have to get really comitted people who will adhere to it's constraints. I don't think this would work anymore. I wouldn't want us to redo the system 4 weeks from now because the judges can't take the time anymore; I want to have a system that will be simple and self-sustaining.
My system would be 1 head judge only. The winner Pm's a new card for the contest to the head judge and they discuss it, finding alternatives if need be and then the contest is launched, people post decks for 4 days, then a message from the head judge announces that judging can now begin, 3 days are given. Deck makers can now turn their attention to deck judging, they are encouraged to provide scoring but are not obligated to (pretty sure there will be more than enough volunteers as the burden of making the thread work is now transfered on the participants themselves; that's the self-sustain part).
Judging doesn't have to be time-consuming; you can be as thourough with testing as you like to be (like I'll probably be), but if your time or patience is in short supply, then just read all the decklists and provide scoring for all of them based on how you think they will perform. The point is that it's not that important, it's just for fun.
I conceed that this system is a bit more chaotic, but so are our lives. I believe the kinks will cancel each other out if: a) we have a standard system of point allocation and b) more people post scores.
@ Kiwoli: Seeing as you're the last person to guest-judge, you probably have a very valid point, having just experienced judging yourself.
Maybe we can mash Creativity and Originality in one category instead.
I have an idea for a new points system... Also "fun" was too subjective a category in my mind. A deck is fun as long as it does what it's supposed to.
Something like this, maybe?
Creativity/Originality: 0 to 5 points
How creative and original is your deck.
Effectiveness/Card adherence: 0 to 5 points
How well does it use the selected card
Synnergy/Tuning: 0 to 5 points
How well do the cards combine in the deck; elegance and card selection.
Power/Capacity to win: 0 to 5 points
Can the deck deliver the goods?
Interaction/Protection: 0 to 5 points
how well does the deck interact and deal with other decks.
Format/Thematics: up to 2 points bonus (can't go over 25)
So what do you guys think?
I think that's pretty close. Two in particular I think are improvements.
Effectiveness/Card adherence: 0 to 5 points
How well does it use the selected card
--------------
I am strongly in favor of "How well does it use the selected card" over "How important is the selected card to the deck."
In my personal opinion, this contest is a lot more fun if it's a contest to see who can use the card the best, not if its a contest to see who can build the deck most reliant on the card. Fundamentally, I think part of that comes from my unwillingness to build a deck that is reliant on a single card, since there's no way to guarantee I'll see it every game. I'd rather build a deck that takes the most advantage of the card when I get it than a deck that needs it to win.
This is especially true when talking about instants or sorceries like Surprise Deployment. In the event you draw it, you're only going to get to use it once. If you're reliant on that to win, what happens if it gets counterspelled? Game over. Instead, build a deck that is set up to take maximum advantage of Surprise Deployment when it shows up.
Interactivity/Protection: 0 to 5 points
how well does the deck interact and deal with other decks.
-------------
I also strongly like the combination of Interaction and Protection here. "How well equipped is this deck to play against something" is completely different from "How many protection cards does this have." If you're requiring a lot of diverse protection, say goodbye to monocolored decks, especially say . . monoblack. OTOH, if you've got a black deck that is designed to have all of it's things destroyed or sacrificed and take a lot of stuff with it, it won't have a lot of "protection" but it'll be completely equipped to interact with another deck quite well.
Leaving this category flexible can only be a good thing, IMO.
Format/Thematics: up to 2 points bonus (can't go over 25)
-------------
One other note on format, I think if we're going to give format bonuses, we need an official list of accepted formats and what the requirements for those formats are. I know I don't know a lot of the format stuff, and I'm sure there are others as well. And you have format disagreements, like Blutsau and I had this particular round. It didn't end up mattering because my deck was Tribal either way, but the one line description I was given on what constituted a Tribal deck apparently wasn't comprehensive enough. I think if we're giving bonuses for format, it needs to be clear how you can acquire that bonus.
NOTE: I'm not complaining about the Tribal issue this turn, it's just an example
J
My MTGSalvation Cube Page (not always up to date, but sweet pics of my alters)
I think it's best like this actually. We don't need to over-complicate by listing all the situations that will or won't warrant points in that category.
I would prefer to leave judgement to each and every one posting scores to give either 0, 1 or 2 points bonus.
So it should be up to the deckmaker to make his case as to why he should receive points in this category, and up to the judges to agree or disagree on the merits of his arguments. For example a posted deck may be tribal, but if the deckmaker doesn't talk about it or explain that part of it, then no points should be given.
@ Kiwoli again: I forgot to address the commenting part. I too would be more comfortable giving at least minimal explanation for the scores I give out and as a contestant I would be happier if they were provided.
But also since we would want the most judging possible, I don't think we can force this.
Just maybe to state this obvious rule; if you give scores without any comments, you would be expected to provide some, should any contestant ask for them.
How do you handle disagreements on format then? Let's take my last deck as an example. Let's imagine for a minute that there are only 2 BoPs in the deck, so it isn't a valid Bird Tribal deck. I feel that it is a Shapeshifter Tribal deck, since there are 20 cards with the subtype Shapeshifter in it. Blutsau feels that it is not, because there are not 20 creatures with the subtype Shapeshifter in it. Lets say some other random judge agrees with me. Am I going to get Tribal points from some judges and not all of them?
I'm willing to go halfway on this, because you do have a point about trying to nail down everything we're going to handle. How about creating a list of formats and the requirements for that format that we accept, but not call it an exclusive list? So we give a quick rundown of the most common formats (MYOS, Tribal, Highlander, etc) and how we're going to judge those decks. Since none of these formats are Officially sanctioned by WotC, there aren't universally accepted rules on these, and I think we should have some sort of standard we're judging by.
On another note, I would also strongly prefer that if you're going to judge, you give some sort of quick comment. I think kiwoli's comments on this last round were sufficient, and if you're going to take the time to "judge" each deck, you should be able to write a single sentence about each score you're giving out. You don't need to write a book, just a quick "Braids of Fire isn't very original in an Upwelling deck," for example, to justify a low creativity score.
J
My MTGSalvation Cube Page (not always up to date, but sweet pics of my alters)
Yes you would, and I don't see a problem with that; usually when two sides argue, the truth is always somewhere in the middle :D.
But seriously, this is only for a point or two; here's how I would judge this:
Example A)
Contestant: "hey and it's all commons, so I should get points for submitting a Peasant deck..."
Me: "Yes, 1 point for your effort in matching your deck to a particular format, next..."
Example B)
Contestant: "What makes this deck so cool is not only is it human tribal, but notice how they're all bikini-babes, gotta love it".
Me: "Well... gosh let me see, Wow, that is very cool indeed, 2 full points for you sir..."
You get my meaning of course; 1 point for format (objective rating; for format adherence); 1 point for theme (subjective rating; for aesthetics, storytelling).
Now if you want to build a list of acceptable formats and define judging criteria for that 1 point, then it's fine :rolleyes:, I'm just going so sit this one out and say that we'll use your list as a base, post it when you've made it so everybody can see it (for the record, I probaly would have given you the shapeshifter format point for your previous deck, cause i'm just a very generous guy...).
Also it seems the majority is in agreement that minimal comments should be given when judging, that's good.
But now I think we need to get on with the results from week 9, and start week 10 and close the season otherwise this thread is gonna stall real quick. I guess for the final contest of the season, it will have to be 2 judges only since Parabola01 is out?... Blutsau? How about it?
No Name Maddox: 36
Anansi: 38.5
kruemel: 33
Post Affinity: 37
Night Child: 39.5
Arc-logger: 39.5
FoggManatic: 41.5
dragoonbot: 33.5
Night Child: 62
Morphadite2: 61.5
No Name Maddox: 55
Anansi: 58
dragoonbot: 59.5
Arc-logger: 56.5
Post Affinity: 49.5
CF105: 48
FoggManatic - Judge : 0
Morphadite2 - 56
Post Affinity - 61
Twilight_Eyes - 43.5
AEIOUsometimesY - 49
Arc-logger - 59
CF105 - 58.5
Thunder Road - 54.5
Anansi - 57
FoggManatic - 56.5
No Name Maddox - 64
Post Affinity: 52
Night Child: 58.5
Shoe: 62
Hammer: 57.5
AEIOUsometimesY: 43.5
CF105: 63
Twilight_Eyes: 38.5
Morphadite2: 67.5
Anansi: 59.5
FoggManatic: 56
Arc-logger: 57.5
Thunder Road: 56
dragoonbot: 68
NNM : 56.5
Hammer 60
AEIOUsometimesY : 49
Morphadite2 : 68
CF105 : 46
Anansi : 63
PA : 52.5
Arc-logger : 59.5
Thunder Road : 50
JeffDerek : 45
Hammer - 12.5 + 15.5 + 11 = 38
AEIOUsometimesY - 22 + 22 + 16 = 60
Anansi - 17.5 + 16 + 21 = 54.5
Lateralus - 18 + 15 + 22 = 55
JeffDerek - 18 + 19.5 + 18 = 55.5
P_A - 22.5 + 21.5 + 22 = 66
Anansi - 22 + 14 + 20.5 = 56.5
Hammer - 21 + 12 + 20.5 = 53.5
distant watcher - 19 + 7 + 16 = 42
Arc-logger - 19 + 14* + 21 = 54
JeffDerek - 19 + 10 + 16.5 = 45.5
dragoonbot - 20 + 16 + 19 = 55
urweak - 22 + 12 + 21 = 55
Hammer - 52.5
fdtori - 55.5
Post Affinity - 54.5
dragoonbot - 58
pooispoois - 50
JeffDerek - 58.5
MagicProfessor28 - 47
urweak - 51.5
Arc-logger - 53.5
kiwoli - 60
fdtori: 21.5 +20 = 41.5
CF105: 13 + 12 = 25
Morphadite2: 18.5 + 20 = 38.5
urweak: 11 + 16 = 27
Anansi: 16 + 18 = 34
dragoonbot: 10 + 15 = 25
JeffDerek: 20 + 21 = 41
Post Affinity: 16 + 18 = 34
No Name Maddox: 19.5 + 20 = 39.5
we have a winner fdtori - with a close half point more than JeffDerek. you have 24h to PM me a card, else I choose one. (mind that people want a Conflux card or I'll get lynched ;))
Night Child: 39.5+62+0+58.5+0+0+0+0+0 = 160
Anansi: 38.5+58+57+59.5+63+54.5+56.5+0+34 = 420
Arc-logger: 39.5+56.5+59+57.5+59.5+0+53.5+0 = 379.5
No Name Maddox: 36+55+64+0+56.5+0+0+0+39.5 = 251.5
dragoonbot: 33.5+59.5+0+68+0+0+55+58+25 = 297
Post Affinity: 37+49.5+61+52+52.5+66+0+54.5+34 = 404.5
Morphadite2: 0+61.5+56+67.5+68+0+0+0+38.5 = 291.5
CF105: 0+48+58.5+63+46+0+0+0+25 = 240.5
FoggManatic: 41.5+0+56.5+56+0+0+0+0+0 = 154
Neon-Chan: 36+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0 = 36
kruemel: 33+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0 = 33
Twilight_Eyes: 0+0+43.5+38.5+0+0+0+0+0 = 82
AEIOUsometimesY: 0+0+49+43.5+49+60+0+0+0 = 201.5
Thunder Road: 0+0+54.5+56+50+0+0+0+0 = 160.5
Hammer: 0+0+0+57.5+60+38+53.5+52.5+0 = 261.5
JeffDerek: 0+0+0+0+45+55.5+45.5+58.5+41 = 245.5
Lateralus: 0+0+0+0+0+55+0+0+0 = 55
distant watcher: 0+0+0+0+0+0+42+0+0 = 42
urweak: 0+0+0+0+0+0+55+51.5+27 = 133.5
MagicProfessor28: 0+0+0+0+0+0+0+47+0 = 47
kiwoli: 0+0+0+0+0+0+0+60+0 = 60
fdtori: 0+0+0+0+0+0+0+55.5+41.5 = 97
If you want a list of formats I'd recommend you our member shoe's site, unless you find something better.
If fdtoris idea of 'massive multi judging' is the way the contests goes, it will average itself out anyways.
If you stick to 4 judges or the person really wants that 1 point: I'd say it's up to the headjudge.
- It's a card from Conflux. (you got what you wanted)
- It fits the mechanical theme of Conflux. (WotC " " they " - us playing with their themes)
- According to WotC you all should love it, because it's soooo awesome by default. (I got what I wanted - not a single complaint)
Child of Alara
enjoy round 10 and have fun.
@ mods: excuses for the double post I'm aware it's bad but people don't want edits when they subscribed. feel free to infract/warn me - I'll not get to three in the next 3 weeks anyways =P
4x Summoner's Egg
4x Birds of Paradise
4x Sprouting Thrinax
3x Saffi Eriksdotter
3x Child of Alara
3x Sek'Kuar, Deathkeeper
3x Emblazoned Golem
Enchantments/Spells (10)
4x Might of Alara
2x Sylvan Bounty
2x Vindicate
2x Harrow
2x Legacy Weapon
2x Darksteel Ingot
Land (22)
3x Bayou
3x Badlands
3x Savannah
3x Taiga
3x Tropical Island
2x Scrubland
2x Plateau
1x Underground Sea
1x Tundra
1x Volcanic Island
2x Clearwater Goblet
2x Bringer of the Black Dawn
2x Infused Arrows
OK, so the mana curve could use a bit of smoothing out, but the basic principal is to get the child out as soon as possible and hit with it as much as possible, not worrying if it gets destroyed. Between Sek'Kuar, Summoner's Egg, Sprouting Thrinax, and Saffi Eriksdotter, there are 14 cards that would give me another creature or two to keep going with, while my opponent would probably have nothing.
I should be able to win by beatdown even if the Child gets RFG'd instead of destroyed, there are some decent sized creatures+Might of Alara in the deck. I won't be able to search for Basic land if I get PtE'd, but I do have all 5 basic land types so Might of Alara should work well. Incidentally, it's theoretically possible to have all 5 land types on turn 3 with this mana base.
I'll tweak it over the next week, but I wanted the first draft in
J
My MTGSalvation Cube Page (not always up to date, but sweet pics of my alters)
4x Flood Plain
4x Bad River
2x Breeding Pool
2x Watery Grave
2x Island
1x Plains
1x Overgrown Tomb
1x Volrath's Stronghold
1x Hallowed Fountain
1x Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth
1x Steam Vents
1x Diamond Valley
1x Maze of Ith
4x Child of Alara
4x Kitchen Finks
4x Epochrasite
2x Thornling
2x Woodfall Primus
Spells:
4x Flash
4x Worldly Tutor
3x Brainstorm
3x Crop Rotation
1x Demonic Tutor
1x Vampiric Tutor
1x Regrowth
4x Darksteel Ingot
Enchantments:
1x Animate Dead
There are a lot of themes here, creature recurrsion via Volrath's Stronghold and the Persist ability. Then there is the brutal Flash + Child of Alara thats an instant speed Wrath of God on roids. With that combo, mix in the creature recurrsion via persist and this makes for a brutal deck, also dont forget the indestructible stuff.
Bogardan Phoenix is in there for the LOL factor off Flash. Tutors find just about anything you need be it Child of Alara with Worldly Tutor or Volrath's Stronghold with Crop Rotation and so on.
BUWGRChilds PlayGRWUB
BUWGR Highlander GRWUB
UBSquee's Shapeshifting PetBU
BW Multiplayer Control WB
RG Changeling GR
UR Mana FlareRU
UMerfolkU
B MBMC B
16 Other spells
2 Recurring Nightmare
4 Makeshift Mannequin
4 Chainer's Edict
3 Innocent Blood
3 Moonlight bargain
4 Child of Alara
2 Darksteel gargoyle
4 Oona's Prowler
4 Mindslicer
4 Dusk Urchins
2 Doomed Necromancer
2 Cabal Pit
2 Volrath's stronghold
4 Barren Moor
16 Swamp
5-colour smive-colour! This deck ignores the stupid 5 symbols in the upper right hand corner of the child and just recurs the guy from the yard. Lots and lots of interactions here:
Innocent blood + child = Akroma's Vengeance for B, plus it slows things down early
Doomed Necro + child = surprise board wipe at instant speed, depending on what opponent is doing
Recurring nightmare + child = keep child coming back again and again
Darksteel Gargoyle - your main finisher, survives child activations
Dusk Urchins - a beatstick that draws cards when it dies, and it will die, either from your opponent or your own spells
Oona's prowler + mannequin - combo has been around for a while now, but still very effective
Mindslicer + Oona's blackguard - after mindslicer goes off, blackguard can swing for 3 every turn.
Moonlight bargain - refill hand and graveyard at instant speed
That's the problem I see with fixed judges. If you have 4 judges with one rotating every 3rd week, that's not going to cut it; bottom line is, I want to be able to participate in this contest if I feel like it, should the round's card tickle my deckbuilding fancy. Also we are at most a dozen people participating, if 3 of those can't post decks, that limits the number ideas being submitted and reduces the value of the thread.
On the other hand you could have a fixed judging system with 4 permanent judges; 1 head judge and 3 rotating judges and you could say that all the judges can post decks.
In such a system though, you'd need to make some kind of schedule, then if a judge can't make it, you need to ask the relief judge to take his place, if he can't, then you're stuck at 2 and if they each post a deck, then it means they only get one score from each other; since they can't rate their own decks. So you say no, this cannot do. So you try to get an extra judge for that one week, etc, etc. It's just harder to manage.
Why not have a system that manages itself, everybody is invited to post judgement, like for instance; 10 participants post decks, then let's say 6 of them post scores, take the low and high score out (taking care of sloppy judgement BTW), average the rest and post the results, easy and simple.
Yes I agree.
Just trying to make life simpler. I get what you are saying though and I agree, but if it might sit better with judges that each use their own system, it certainly does not sit better with some contestants here who have been commenting that we should get a uniform system for many weeks, it just makes sense. Could you imagine any sporting competition where the judges use wildly different systems, like what we've been doing here; with some using timmy/johnny/spike and others using fun/creativity/protection...
Too much management, too much work, but that's just my opinion :p.
I wouldn't call analyzing a decklist without testing: "not bothering with a deck". Taking a hard look means looking at a deck, seeing card selection and interaction, reading what the constestant says about his deck and visualizing if the deck is realistic and is built to actually accomplish what the deckbuilder says it can... Nuances schmuances! Even after I've built my decks, tested them and played them, I still don't know all there is to know about them and I am always surprised by a neat interaction I hadn't noticed before.
Fishbowling decks on MWS, will not give you a grand view into a deck's soul, just give you a basic idea if the manabase is ok, if the curve comes out right, the draw is good, etc. In fact I'd be pretty surprised if all the past judges really tested all the decks in true 1-on-1 games; didn't Blutsau once say: "If you get me to proxy your deck, you are close to 25" ? (sorry to put you on the spot).
So yes, there will be mistakes and slip-ups, look at the past weeks, even in a fixed judge system it happens, players noticed a judging error, mentionned it, and the judge corrected the score. There's no reason this cannot be the same in a multi-judge system, and even if mistakes happen and are not corrected, you remove the high and low score for the points average as a double safeguard.
That's probably never going to happen anyway, seeing as how everyone here is saying that they would not do this...
Hey I'm not going to ignore anybody's views, so far it's pretty even as to what system people want; a couple have agreed that multi judging is the way to go, but others such as yourself and Arc-logger have shown doubts and would prefer fixed judging. I will rally to the majority of course, heck, in the end we'll probably have a hybridized version anyway.
Don't diss yourself... Seeing as you are a past winner yourself (I'm guessing that bragging rights are included in the prize right?) and that you have participated in a lot of the rounds, I always value your opinions on the forums and I think you would make a fine judge :smileup:.
Now back to this week's contest, I will be judging by the criteria I mentionned in post # 361.
Nice to see some aggro-control decks! Combo decks are fun to imagine and build, not always fun to play against, have a good contest everyone.
So yea, consistent scoring = good
J
My MTGSalvation Cube Page (not always up to date, but sweet pics of my alters)
J
My MTGSalvation Cube Page (not always up to date, but sweet pics of my alters)
1 Okina, Temple to the grandfathers
1 Miren, the moaning well
3 forest
4 taiga
4 savannah
4 bayou
4 tropical island
4 child of alara
4 genesis
4 deadwood treefolk
2 thornling
4 time of need
1 regrowth
4 revive
4 natures lore
4 three visits
2 safewright quest
the point is to keep blowing everything up by making the child of alara go to the graveyard, and attack with the svogthos and the sapling , which do not get blown up.
hopefully the time of needs and the land searches will allow you to play the child of alara quickly.
casual deck construction contest season 3:
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=189597
my trade thread:
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=239539
4 Enlightened Tutor
4 Child of Alara
3 Mask of the mimic
1 cauldron of souls
1 Burning Sands
4 Dingus Staff
3 Hunted Phantasm
4 wrath of god
1 Grim feast
3 Birds of paradise
3 Idyllic tutor
2 Flash
2 Diabolic intent
4 Forbidden Orchard
4 Reflecting pool
4 City of brass
4 Rupture Spire
4 Grand Coliseum
4 Vivid Grove
The idea here is to destroy the children via flash, mask (that can fetch another children!!) tainted aether, intent or even through normal combat and then get benefits from your enchantments, feast will give you a good amount of lives, staff can kill your opponent, and the sands can make sure your opponent is out of the game, the deck has also some cards that give creatures to your opponent in case you need it, and also has a cauldron of souls in case you have tainted aether and you think one time isn't enough.
Also now, I don't think we ought to change the judging for this the final round of season 1. We can be just 2 judges, like the previous week. I then suggest that we bonify the points on a pro rata basis for these 2 weeks to make it as though 3 judges had actually scored; more fair for the season totals IMO. How's that with you Blutsau?
Then maybe the contest should have a short off-season (say, a couple of weeks maybe?), then the new head judge can launch a new thread for season 2, explaining the rules change (if any).
fdtori and I will judge this round.
the points people earned in 'two judge rounds' will be multiplied by 1.5.
The official winner of 'season 1' will be the person with the highest total of points earned from R1-R10.
I'll also make non-official lists to determine ranks in other ways.
Don't take it personaly, this is just business, eh?
How creative and original is your deck.
2 points...
Straight Aggro and Using the Child for what it's designed to do, be a threat and blow up stuff by the wayside, not terribly original.
Effectiveness/Card Adherence: 0 to 5 points
How well does it use the selected card.
2 points...
A bit of deal-with-me-or-not-I-don't-care-either-way feeling in here, you get some points for trying to break the symmetry with your creature selection.
The Child is powerful for sure, but here I don't feel it's needed that much, It's just a trampling beatstick and I'm not even sure I would want it to die. Using a card well in my mind also means trying to break open all the possibilities of the card.
Synnergy/Tuning: 0 to 5 points
How well do the cards combine in the deck; elegance and card selection.
2 points...
Sylvan Bounty and Harrow do nothing in this deck (no basics).
Emblazoned Golem ??? Why would I want to tie up mana for this in a Child of Alara deck?
I don't really like Summoner's Egg here, if you don't have the Child in hand, it's a dead card as I probably wouldn't bother with any other creature you have listed.
Legacy Weapon? (domain throw-in?) Wouldn't a dying Child amount to the same effect? And much more?
No tutoring, no draw, no recyclability whatsoever.
You also lost points for having no way to blow the Child up yourself (except wasting your own Vindicates) so you are very succeptible to RFG spells.
Power/Capacity to win: 0 to 5 points
Can the deck deliver the goods?
3.5 points...
Straight aggro strategy. The deck can win. Might of Alara is a 1 mana +5/+5 most of the time. Sprouting Thrinax is a good choice especially with Child. Birds can mean a lucky 2nd turn Thrinax and a very lucky 3rd turn Child with the Ingot, but that's about it.
Interaction/Protection: 0 to 5 points
how well does the deck interact and deal with other decks.
2 points...
Not as well as you may have hoped. The deck feels like it was made to fishbowl, nothing to do except summon creatures and attack, not a very reactive deck.
Format/Thematics: up to 2 points bonus
0 points (nothing here)
TOTAL: 11.5
Overall, a deck that really should have been revisited before the deadline...
How creative and original is your deck.
2.5 points...
Again Child Aggro that tries to break the symmetry... A bit better this time. You speak of persist but you only have 4 critters with the ability in there... A persisting Child would have been so cool but you chose not to explore that space.
Effectiveness/Card Adherence: 0 to 5 points
How well does it use the selected card.
3 points...
This deck as opposed to the previous one, cares a bit more about trying to use the child as a tool.
Synnergy/Tuning: 0 to 5 points
How well do the cards combine in the deck; elegance and card selection.
3 points...
I like Epochrasite in here, a bit slow to benefit but it's still elegant.
Flash is ok, but it means holding on to a Child in hand, as it's no use flashing it early.
Lots of tutors and some draw and recyclability.
Woodfall Primus; Is it me or that guy doesn't do much coming back from a Child's wrath?
Power/Capacity to win: 0 to 5 points
Can the deck deliver the goods?
3 points...
Thornling is obviously very good in here, nothing much else to say.
Interaction/Protection: 0 to 5 points
how well does the deck interact and deal with other decks.
3 points...
Again relying solely on the Child for dealing with opponent's stuff, but with the tutors and some sac outlets it'll be more reliable.
Format/Thematics: up to 2 points bonus
0 points (nothing here)
TOTAL: 14.5 points
This deck needs some additional tuning, and a bit of rethinking.
How creative and original is your deck.
4.5 points...
Monoblack domain? I like. Aggro-control-combo-lock mish-mash that's surprisingnly well done; sign me up.
Effectiveness/Card adherence: 0 to 5 points
How well does it use the selected card.
4.5 points...
Good usage, you can beat with it or go control-combo almost at your whim; using all the posibilities of the card.
Synnergy/Tuning: 0 to 5 points
How well do the cards combine in the deck; elegance and card selection.
4.5 points...
Almost perfect, you had Spinal Graft in there before and I had to laugh at the beauty of that one but choosing Makeshift Mannequin instead is a very nice touch and can't be disputed.
Playing it, I just kept wishing for some Dark Rituals in here though; I wouldn't have put the Darksteel Gargoyle in here, once you get Recurring Nightmare with one Child in play and one in the grave it's basicaly game over.
DusK Urchins; nice. Mindslicer; thumbs up.
Any reason you were not using Phyrexian Tower?
Power/Capacity to win: 0 to 5 points
Can the deck deliver the goods?
4.5 points...
Oh yes, starting with very aggressively curved critters you can go aggro all the way or finish it up with a nice combo lock win
Interaction/Protection: 0 to 5 points
how well does the deck interact and deal with other decks.
4 points
Very well for monoblack, though you can't get more than four since you are vulnerable to non-creature permanents, a few tutors would have helped you here.
Format/Thematics: up to 2 points bonus
0 points (nothing here)
TOTAL: 22 points
Very solid entry Hammer!
How creative and original is your deck.
4 points...
Again a single color domain! I like the idea of the Child of Alara into Progenitus plan, Nasty!
Effectiveness/Card adherence: 0 to 5 points
How well does it use the selected card.
4 points...
Good use, lots of ways to benefit from the selected card.
Synnergy/Tuning: 0 to 5 points
How well do the cards combine in the deck; elegance and card selection.
4.5 points...
I like a lot of Card selection in here, namely Primal Growth, Natural Order and Gamekeeper, very smooth synnergy indeed!
I don't really like Gilt-Leaf Ambush here though, I know what it's there for but it still seems out of place plus you can't manipulate the top of your deck.
Power/Capacity to win: 0 to 5 points
Can the deck deliver the goods?
4.5 points...
Yes it can. In a kind of BIG, inevitable way.
Interaction/Protection: 0 to 5 points
how well does the deck interact and deal with other decks.
3.5 points...
Gamekeeper can keep attackers at bay, especially in multiplayer. Lure of prey is also nifty for it's instant-speed surprise. But the deck really relies on 6 cards only to counter the opponent's plan.
Format/Thematics: up to 2 points bonus
0 points (nothing here)
TOTAL: 20.5 points
A close second place, keep it up!
How creative and original is your deck.
2 points...
I get your idea with Svogthos, so you get 2 points for thinking about it but not for the execution of it; 1 Svogthos only???
Effectiveness/Card adherence: 0 to 5 points
How well does it use the selected card.
2 points...
Blow up stuff? How will you make the child go to the grave besides attacking or blocking with it?
Don't get me wrong, the Child is crucial (not in a good way) to this deck but again, not using all the possibilities here.
Synnergy/Tuning: 0 to 5 points
How well do the cards combine in the deck; elegance and card selection.
2 points...
Time of need will get you child, but not Miren which you really need as you can probably cast Child quickly.
Why 4 Genesis, 4 Deadwood Treefolk and 4 Revive? don't you need some creatures in the grave for Svogthos?
Also the deck is missing 3 cards...
Power/Capacity to win: 0 to 5 points
Can the deck deliver the goods?
1.5 points...
This deck can only win with Child. Svogthos is not going to get very big and any non-damage removal spell will take care of it pronto, and you have no way to recur it besides the one Regrowth.
The deck also doesn't have much of an early game plan besides fetching lands, weenie will crush you.
Interaction/Protection: 0 to 5 points
how well does the deck interact and deal with other decks.
2 points...
Not very well. Again relying solely on the Child for disruption, you get points only because you can tutor it.
Format/Thematics: up to 2 points bonus
0 points... (nothing here)
TOTAL: 9.5
If I was a sports commentator I'd say: "well Mike, I don't know what Anansi had for breakfast, not a very good performance from a past champion, just scratch that one and hope for better next time."
How creative and original is your deck.
3 points...
Man I feel bad for you, some good ideas which will get you some leverage but only once each since the Child destroys permanents, if only it would've killed only creatures, then the deck would have been quite the machine!
Effectiveness/Card adherence: 0 to 5 points
How well does it use the selected card.
2 points...
Not very well since it kills all your hard-earned stuff and you have no way to recur anything.
Synnergy/Tuning: 0 to 5 points
How well do the cards combine in the deck; elegance and card selection.
2 points...
It would be Elegant if only it worked well, as it is, it's pretty clunky.
Also Mask of the Mimic doesn't work the way you wish, if you choose the child as the copy arget, it will fizzle on resolution and you will get nothing, and the only other targets for it in the deck are the birds and the phantasms, so not exactly broken.
Power/Capacity to win: 0 to 5 points
Can the deck deliver the goods?
2.5 points...
Well, there's the Child and Dingus Staff combo that can kill, and you can be lucky with your Hunted Phantasm/Burning Sands/Tainted Aether; so yes it can but kind of iffy.
Interaction/Protection: 0 to 5 points
how well does the deck interact and deal with other decks.
3 points...
Wrath of God really helps you here, the child being the only other disruption you have.
Format/Thematics: up to 2 points bonus
0 points... (nothing here)
TOTAL: 12.5 points.
A kind of mini-fail, not an epic one. Better luck next time.
Hammer: 22
No Name Maddox: 20.5
urweak: 14.5
Post Affinity: 12.5
Jeff Derek: 11.5
Anansi: 9.5
Indeed. I was very close to coming back and retracting the entry alltogether. I've been sick all week and never had the energy to do it right. No hard feelings.
Wait til next year
J
My MTGSalvation Cube Page (not always up to date, but sweet pics of my alters)
Primus gets lands, Child doesnt. But the real use for him is off Flash, you get a 5/5 trample for 1U and take out two lands.
BUWGRChilds PlayGRWUB
BUWGR Highlander GRWUB
UBSquee's Shapeshifting PetBU
BW Multiplayer Control WB
RG Changeling GR
UR Mana FlareRU
UMerfolkU
B MBMC B