Welcome to the May MCC! It's Graphic Design Month here at the MCC. We'll be celebrating an underappreciated team in R&D: Graphic Design.
Main Challenge: Design a card with a new frame.
Subchallenge 1: Your card has and/or mentions at least three evergreen or deciduous keyword abilities.
Subchallenge 2: Your card's textbox(es) contains no more than 200 characters, including symbols, reminder text, and flavor text but not including spaces.
DEADLINES
Design deadline: Saturday, May 25, 23:59 EDT
Judging deadline: Tuesday, May 28, 23:59 EDT
If time extensions are required, they WILL eat time from the next round to realign with the calendar, so please ask them only if you really need them. This is for both players and judges.
Clarifications
Show
Hide
Main Challenge:
There are plenty of mechanics that would have met this challenge when they were printed: Sagas, Cases, Classes, Level-up, Battles, Planeswalkers, TDFCs, MDFCs, Fuse, Aftermath, and many more. There are others that would have received partial credit, since they were technically "new frames" but the changes were purely cosmetic, such as Vehicles, cards with reconfigure, or enchantment creatures. What will be disqualified is cards that are purely based on color changes: a colorless Class would technically need a "new frame" since it's never existed before, but that does not count for the purpose of this challenge.
To put it another way, there must be some sort of new mechanical element to the card to avoid disqualification, and to earn full points the new frame must play an important role in this new mechanical function. Even something like Miracle would meet this criterion, since the frame changes were necessary to give the players a visual cue immediately upon drawing the card.
You may provide some visual description of your card's layout, e.g.
The first spell is aligned normally, except that the art is much shorter than a typical card art with a wide aspect ratio. The second spell is aligned perpendicular to the first, with a similar layout and aspect ratio to a standard split card.
However, any mechanical elucidation of how the new mechanic works must be clear from the rules or reminder text itself, e.g.:
Aftermath (Cast this spell only from your graveyard. Then exile it.)
Subchallenge 1:
The card can either have the ability (obviously) or just mention it, which could mean that it gains/grants the ability or that it references it in some other way. The only thing that doesn't count is having it in the reminder text.
Evergreen keyword abilities (Keyword actions don't count!)
Deciduous mechanics (N.B. sorting by type allows you to group all the keyword abilities together)
Subchallenge 2:
Microsoft word includes a convenient "Word Count" feature under "Tools" that will give you a character count excluding spaces.
This limit does not include any "symbols" you include to demarcate physical boundaries within your card (///, ---, {}, or the like), nor does it include the name, typeline, power, toughness, loyalty, or anything else that is not within the rules/flavor textbox(es).
There are plenty of mechanics that would have met this challenge when they were printed: Sagas, Cases, Classes, Level-up, Battles, Planeswalkers, TDFCs, MDFCs, Fuse, Aftermath, and many more. There are others that would have received partial credit, since they were technically "new frames" but the changes were purely cosmetic, such as Vehicles, cards with reconfigure, or enchantment creatures. What will be disqualified is cards that are purely based on color changes: a colorless Class would technically need a "new frame" since it's never existed before, but that does not count for the purpose of this challenge.
To put it another way, there must be some sort of new mechanical element to the card to avoid disqualification, and to earn full points the new frame must play an important role in this new mechanical function. Even something like Miracle would meet this criterion, since the frame changes were necessary to give the players a visual cue immediately upon drawing the card.
You may provide some visual description of your card's layout, e.g.
The first spell is aligned normally, except that the art is much shorter than a typical card art with a wide aspect ratio. The second spell is aligned perpendicular to the first, with a similar layout and aspect ratio to a standard split card.
However, any mechanical elucidation of how the new mechanic works must be clear from the rules or reminder text itself, e.g.:
Aftermath (Cast this spell only from your graveyard. Then exile it.)
Subchallenge 1:
The card can either have the ability (obviously) or just mention it, which could mean that it gains/grants the ability or that it references it in some other way. The only thing that doesn't count is having it in the reminder text.
Evergreen keyword abilities (Keyword actions don't count!)
Deciduous mechanics (N.B. sorting by type allows you to group all the keyword abilities together)
Subchallenge 2:
Microsoft word includes a convenient "Word Count" feature under "Tools" that will give you a character count excluding spaces.
This limit does not include any "symbols" you include to demarcate physical boundaries within your card (///, ---, {}, or the like), nor does it include the name, typeline, power, toughness, loyalty, or anything else that is not within the rules/flavor textbox(es).
@bravelion83
@shullz
@Freyleyes
@Subject16
@void_nothing
@Komandon
RUBRIC
MCC Rubric
Show
Hide
The MCC Rubric is given below, in an easily "copy and pasted" form. (Courtesy of Rithaniel.)
Code: Select all
[b]Design[/b]
[b](X/3) Appeal[/b] - Do the different player psychographics (Timmy/Johhny/Spike) have a use for the card?
[b](X/3) Elegance[/b] - Is the card easily understandable at a glance? Do all the flavor and mechanics combined as a whole make sense?
[b]Development[/b]
[b](X/3) Viability[/b] - How well does the card fit into the color wheel? Does it break or bend the rules of the game? Is it the appropriate rarity?
[b](X/3) Balance[/b] - Does the card have a power level appropriate for contemporary constructed/limited environments without breaking them? Does it play well in casual and multiplayer formats? Does it create or fit into a deck/archetype? Does it create an oppressive environment?
[b]Creativity[/b]
[b](X/3) Uniqueness[/b] - Has a card like this ever been printed before? Does it use new mechanics, ideas, or design space? Does it combine old ideas in a new way? Overall, does it feel "fresh"?
[b](X/3) Flavor[/b] - Does the name seem realistic for a card? Does the flavor text sound professional? Do all the flavor elements synch together to please Vorthos players?
[b]Polish[/b]
[b](X/3) Quality[/b] - Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
[b](X/2) Main Challenge (*)[/b] - Was the main challenge satisfied? Was it approached in a unique or interesting way? Does the card fit the intent of the challenge?
[b](X/2) Subchallenges[/b] - One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
[b]Total: X/25[/b]
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.slimytrout
Ink-Treader
