MTGNexus

Round 3 is up.

Blydden wrote: ↑

4 years ago

Creativity -
(0.5/3) Uniqueness: Throne of Eldraine had plenty of Food to go around, and every single set has Blue card draw effects.

Sorry, but I disagree with just this part! Such way many cards could get low scoring just because they use basic effects (damage, counters, etc.). I think it is at least somehow unique - do you have ever effect like "draw a card for each player" or "each player create Food token"?
Also you can interact nicely with token-based abilities like Woodland Champion or Doubling Season.

[mention]Sagharri[/mention] That was one of the many times I would have preferred to use quarter-points. I had to round from 0.75, and I decided to round down for the reasons I stated in the critique rather than round up.

I have updated your critique to round up the Uniqueness score to 1 instead of round it down to 0.5. Please PM me privately if you would like your card's judgment reviewed further.

slimytrout wrote: ↑

4 years ago

Gateways7 wrote: ↑

4 years ago

(2/3) Balance - 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?
I think that this is about on par for a Limited creature, and I think it does a good job of being a big, dumb white creature that has the ability to swing a game in your favor. I think that this might even have a place in a Standard white deck's sideboard as a way to blow out RDW, or a way to stay on par with Congregate creature-spam Commander decks. My only gripe is that the Adventure-half is way overpriced - Angel's Grace does this ability with more protection and Split second at 1 mana, the Adventure could have easily matched it. It's a little weak as-is.

I feel like this is kinda missing the idea of card advantage/flexibility. Like, the reason Angel's Grace gets to be only 1 mana and have split second is because it's extremely narrow - literally doesn't do anything unless you're about to lose the game, and then only saves you for probably one turn. But when you staple on a fairly large body that can also bring your life total way back up, I think play design might even say that forcing players to pay a 2 mana premium is not enough.

Also, I feel like if you say that it's reasonable in limited and possibly has a place in standard and constructed, that answers yes to the first three questions and no to the fourth. It kind of seems like the appeal section is bleeding into the balance section here -- I totally agree that players might be put off by the higher cost compared to familiar cards, but I don't believe that the card is too weak to see play.

I was trying (and failed) to say that I think that while there is flexibility that exists, the cost put onto that flexibility is way too overpriced - I honestly think that since it doesn't have split second and a lose the game clause like Angel's Grace, it could be fine at W or 1W without being overly flexible, as there are already a lot of cases where they can respond to Return and kill you. My point about how the card would be playable in Standard or EDH was specifically about the creature half of the card, and I think that leaving the creature side alone and making the Adventure cost less would make the card a little stronger, as at current it's more likely that you'd just cast the creature half and never have a good opportunity to cast the Adventure because it costs so much.

As for the balance section, I used the guidelines set by Leo in the first challenge, and while it might seem that the two cards have a similar amount of spacing, there could be an issue with kerning in the MSE render. I'm going to stick with both of my judgement, but thanks for bringing it to my attention!

Fair enough - I still think it's more balanced this way, since the card we're comparing it to is a modern staple that doesn't have a giant body attached, and I think too much cheaper would make control decks oppressive. Moreover, there are plenty of "balanced" adventures that are way worse than equivalent cards - Stomp, for example, is no Lightning Bolt, but the card is likely to be a cube staple, and Bring Back is the worst Raise the Alarm I've ever seen. But you're the judge, and besides, the next round is already up.

Anyway, I suppose I shouldn't complain too much since I got more uniqueness points than I ought to - the effect on the giant is almost identical to that on Arbiter of Knollridge, except stronger since it only raises your total.

Gateways7 wrote: ↑

4 years ago

As for the balance section, I used the guidelines set by Leo in the first challenge,

I'd like to remind everyone that those are just while we wait for an official MSE Adventure frame (hopefully coming soon). And anyway, this won't be a problem anymore in the last two rounds as all the six "surviving" players have already used the Adventure option.


[mention]netn10[/mention]

netn10 wrote: ↑

4 years ago

Question: Does this card count for caring about knights you control?

Silence of the Court 2UU
Instant (Rare)
Counter target spell.
Tap four untapped Knight creatures you control: Return Silence of the Court from your graveyard to your hand.

I'm answering your question here in the discussion thread, where it belongs. I've quoted it here exactly so that you can remove it from your submission post before the design deadline. The only additional thing you can include in your submission post this round is the specific option you're choosing (no need to mention all your previous choices, I'm tracking them all in an Excel sheet, just mention what you're going for in this specific round). Any other questions, doubts, etc... go here.

Anyway, the answer to your question is yes, it counts. See this sentence from Clarification > option-specific > Knights:

bravelion83 wrote: ↑

4 years ago

The interaction can be anything you can think of

And nowhere does it say that the tribal Knight part can't be a cost. Your card, as quoted above, passes the Main Challenge - option "Knights".

Now seeking a host for the November MCC!

I'd be down to host either the MCC or the CCL next month (putting this in this thread for no particular reason -- equally happy to do either). Don't have time to do both however.

Well when it comes down to it, my preferred contest to run is the CCL. I have no problem running it for another month in a row, nor is it an issue for me running it at the same time as the DCC. If, in the worst case scenario, we get no other volunteer, I'd prefer you to run the MCC.

My own judgments for October Round 3 have been posted in the round thread.

[mention]slimytrout[/mention], don't worry and don't be afraid to host if you have the time and will. I have all the intention to keep my judging streak going on for now (until I'm still unemployed... yes, there is some good and some bad in it, as in most things in life...), so I will definitely be there to help you with anything if you need it.

Thanks! And yeah, since no one else has volunteered, it seems like I will be hosting, which I'm down to do. I did have a couple quick questions:

1) When do you usually post the judge signup thread? Before or after (or simultaneous with) posting Round 1?

2) Could I get an image file of the MCC logo from you?

Thank you!

1) It's either before or simultaneous; I would recommend posting the judge signup thread a day or 2 before the 1st.

2) I know that bravelion83 has that file as a transparency.

slimytrout wrote: ↑

4 years ago

2) Could I get an image file of the MCC logo from you?

void_nothing wrote: ↑

4 years ago

2) I know that bravelion83 has that file as a transparency.

[mention]slimytrout[/mention] Indeed. I could also make a whole banner for you, it wouldn't be the first time I do it. I'll contact you via pm.

EDIT: In the meantime, the final round for October is up. Not in any way what I expected or had planned, but I am very proud of this last minute story that our three finalists ([mention]Flatline[/mention], [mention]netn10[/mention], [mention]Subject16[/mention]) allowed me to write with their choices this month. It's a much better ending than anything else I might have thought of. So, enjoy how a battle to the death has turned into a celebration of friendship. To me, it really feels the best ending that the story of this month could have had, and again, I'm very proud of it.

Well, I botched that round. I should have gone for my original idea of a black knight that made a white knight if spent 3 white mana and ignored the subchallenges. And double checked that I had the right rarity. Oh well, have fun on round 4, guys!

November Round 1 is up! Also, still looking for one more judge, so if you don't have any great ideas for the challenge please come judge instead!

[mention]Subject16[/mention] ......... Congrats! I knew you were going to win as soon as I saw your card. Good stuff! I'm surprised nobody compared it to Angelic Destiny. I know it's an enchantment, but it's the first thing I thought of when I saw your card. So much so, that I thought your card was inspired by it. Was it?

Ok, somebody apparenty did the math before me, or actually probably just as I was writing the (longer than usual) post with the final results for October. Anyway, yes, I confirm officially that [mention]Subject16[/mention] is the MCC winner for October. Congratulations to him! Thank you to my fellow judges and all of the players, and a reminder that Round 1 for November is going on right now. I'll probably see you again on Theros.

Flatline wrote: ↑

4 years ago

I'm surprised nobody compared it to Angelic Destiny. I know it's an enchantment, but it's the first thing I thought of when I saw your card.

Honestly, it was also the first thing I did think about. Then, for some reason, I completely forgot to mention it. I would add it now, but it would only bring Viability up half a point, going to 3/3, and Subject16's total score up half a point, but he's already the winner, so this is kinda pointless. I'll leave it all as is, also because we're technically passed the judging deadline.

To be honest, I can't say I was directly inspired by Angelic Destiny, but I have been floating past one when going over my collection recently so who knows? If I has, I probably would have bumped it up to mythic. I ended up tinkering with it a lot (both on and off site), between giving it lifelink as wel,l and messing with charge counters for the reanimation. It was a mess to sort out but I'm happy with the result (and so are the judged yay!).

If some of you didn't know, Kenrith's sword is relevant to the storyline of the set, as both Linden and he were given one by the Questing Beast to begin their journey to be come High King/Queen. Each sword is used at one point in the story to bring a character back from the dead, so I was keen on implementing that onto the card. It was tough working between that and the Sword in the Stone/Excalibur myth seeing as they're not one to one parallels (I did always feel like Embercleave made for a poor Excalibur).

Congratulations to Subject16 for winning October.

Can I get a confirmation that my entry satisfies the main challenge? Technically 'until ~ leaves the battlefield' creates a second trigger that works with dying, but I can think of something else if that's not good enough
[mention]slimytrout[/mention]

I can confirm that it won't fail the main challenge -- i.e., you won't be disqualified for your entry. However, I don't want to promise that you will receive full points on the main challenge, because a) technically there wouldn't be a death trigger if the creature is killed before the ETB trigger resolves, and, more importantly, b) the challenge specifically relates to the graveyard, and the trigger would occur even if it went to another zone.

To the current and future hosts of the MCC: Please include a link to the MCC Rules as well as its timestamp in each round. I've had a few months' break from the last card contest when it was still held on MTGS and I've apparently committed two things qualifying my entry for DQ by the new rules. I accept that, just making sure it won't happen with anyone else

A link to the rules was included in the round post, although perhaps not clearly or visibly enough (it was under the PLAYERS subhead -- the link to the MCC Guidelines and FAQ). I will certainly make it more obvious in future rounds. What do you mean by timestamp? I'll do my best to oblige (although I don't want to make promises for future hosts), but I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to.

I mean a visible information about the last rules update time

Ah, got it. Yes, I can easily do that -- as far as I know, it hasn't been changed since it was ported over from MTGS back in July.