MTGNexus

Ppl seem to keep missing this... if you are also a contestant in R2 put your R1 card in your post using quote or hyperlink

Does it have to have "Kiora''s" or Planeswalker' s in the card name? Or does Something like Rise of the Dark Realms count?

ForestsCarl wrote: ↑ Does it have to have "Kiora''s" or Planeswalker' s in the card name? Or does Something like Rise of the Dark Realms count?

This is unofficial, of course, but given the Main Challenge:

Ryder wrote: ↑ Main Challenge: Design a Rare Enchantment or Sorcery card that represents your Round 1 Character's show of strength.

I'd say a Signature Spell with the Planeswalker's name would make sense for flavor. Also, making sure your entry is an Enchantment or Sorcery would also be important.

ForestsCarl wrote: ↑

4 years ago

Does it have to have "Kiora''s" or Planeswalker' s in the card name? Or does Something like Rise of the Dark Realms count?

Technically it doesn't, but it sure helps the flavor.

The round is ending at midnight and four contestants haven't even put in a placeholder - @Kypster @Icarii @RaikouRider and @Henlock. I assume they all know they've advanced but I can't be sure.

24-hours extension it is then.

Is anyone interested in hosting the March MCC?

Ryder wrote: ↑

4 years ago

(1/3) Balance - The second mode is just a very bad Damnation outside of pure Johnnyland. But it's only one mode, so ok. The first mode, the meat, is only better than an unkicked Rite of Replication when you control 3 other creatures. Well, this is bad. Overall the card is quite overcosted for three colors. 3BGU or even 2BGU would work.

Hey Ryder, I have some questions about your criticisms. Mostly academic but it is fairly close between myself and 3rd and I'd like to address them earlier rather than later.


First mode:

Destroy all creatures you control. For each creature destroyed this way, create a token that's a copy of the exiled creature, except it's an Ooze in addition to its other types.

You're not wrong about the low value when your board is low on creatures, however, I feel like the open ended-ness of the effect (in a 'go wide' deck this could easily be up to 5 tokens or more which is a 9 cmc Rite) and diversity of options makes up for the value.

Second mode:

Destroy all creatures you don't control. For each creature destroyed this way, its controller creates a token that's a copy of the exiled creature, except it's an Ooze in addition to its other types.

This is a one sided board wipe. It's technically replacing them with another creature but it could very easily have been a Llanowar Elf or, even better, a 0/0 Hydra type creature. Damnation is a field wipe so I'm having trouble finding the correlation between the two.

Third(?) mode:
You didn't touch on the 'both' option.
I will admit that this is somewhat of a niche choice (Johnnyland indeed) but I thought it could be an interesting play space so I left it in. I will admit this could be filed under a worse Damnation but as you mentioned, it's only one option. Was this maybe what you were referring to for the Second Mode?

In closing, I would say that any one mode isn't better than a similar singular function card (Rites of Replication, Plague Wind, Damnation) but I do feel like the combined options make it worth the value.

I would absolutely appreciate any clarification on the above and thank you for taking the time to read my musings.

Kypster wrote: ↑

4 years ago

I feel like the open ended-ness of the effect (in a 'go wide' deck this could easily be up to 5 tokens or more which is a 9 cmc Rite) and diversity of options makes up for the value.

Yes, but 9cmc Rite would still be better as it doesn't merely upgrade your creatures, but produces all tokens out of just one source.

Kypster wrote: ↑

4 years ago

This is a one sided board wipe. It's technically replacing them with another creature but it could very easily have been a Llanowar Elf or, even better, a 0/0 Hydra type creature. Damnation is a field wipe so I'm having trouble finding the correlation between the two.

Well, it's a one-sided board wipe that exiles one of your creatures and gives the opponent a copy of it for each creature they lose. So, it requires you to have a creature in play (already questionable consistency, it's a 7 mana sorcery, conditional!?), it acts as a "board wipe" only if that creature is irrelevant (which means you play irrelevant creatures in your deck, Hydras are a nice interaction but it's quite specific, you have to admit).

Two options at the same time would need a reeeeallly specific board state (or deck) to be useful.

All in all, I do like your card and you've advanced, congrats. The balance was off at least by my standards, though

Fair enough! Thanks for taking the time. Can't wait for next round!

I don't want this to come across as a specific criticism, but I do think that it is unfortunate when a subchallenge in one contest ultimately sets you up for failure in a subsequent contest. In this case, I'm referring to how Subchallenge 1 in Rd. 1 asks for a 2-color walker, while Subchallenge 2 in Rd. 3 requires you to add a color to your walker. For me personally, I already deviated from the existing Tibalt cards to make him R/B for that subchallenge specifically, even if MaRo has said multiple times that he is Rakdos from a flavor perspecitive, so it would be an even further stretch to add a third color (plus, it's just much harder to make a 3-color uncommon than a 2-color one), which I wouldn't have had to do if I'd just made him monored originally. I know that the subchallenges are supposed to be harder to meet in the later rounds, but it is frustrating to feel like I was "baited" into making a suboptimal choice earlier (and yes, ultimately it's 1 point now for 1 point then, but I don't think that anyone would argue with the fact that each point gets much more important as the month progresses, and if I had the power to go back and give up that point I definitely would).

slimytrout wrote: ↑

4 years ago

he is Rakdos from a flavor perspecitive

I see no problems here. Tibalt is Rakdos, even if his existing cards are monored. Existing cards don't matter. Character concept does. Niv-Mizzet went from Blue-Red to full rainbow recently. I see no reason why Tibalt could not be Grixis or Jund once. Obviously, it's much harder to design a good 3c card than a monocolored one, but that is the challenge

Perhaps I was not clear enough about what I found frustrating: it's not that I object to the subchallenges being hard (although they definitely are), or that I think it would be impossible to design a 3-color Tibalt (even if I do think it would require a *major* change in his character that would be tough to show on one card without art), it's that I feel like I was "tricked" into making this particular challenge harder for myself. Had Subchallenge 1 in Rd. 1 not called for a 2-color walker, I would have designed a mono-red Tibalt (or maybe an entirely different 1-color walker), which would have then made this subchallenge easier. I haven't looked through the colors of my competitors' walkers, but it is possible that one of them will have an easier time this month because they chose not to meet the earlier subchallenge, which feels (no offense to those players) like a bit of an unearned advantage.

And again, I don't mean this as a "man, I hate this round/month," because I really do like it overall. It's just this specific aspect that I think creates a feel-bad moment.

@ForestsCarl one more day for Round 3 design

My judgments for round 3 are up.

The standings are pretty interesting! Unless some judge alters the scores before midnight, we're going to have a Final with FIVE players!

@Ryder, I think you misinterpreted how my entry would work (not that that fact speaks well to its elegance, but so it goes). The card is functioning like a Spikeshot Elder, not like a Cragganwick Cremator.

The fact that it works that way can be distinguished by the fact that it says "its power" rather than "that card's power."

Alright. Just as inelegant, but more balanced and correct. Sorry ForestsCarl!

Checking once again to see who may be interested in hosting the March MCC.

Trying to avoid a repeat of last finals, I was hoping for a little clarification on how rigorously to interpret the "defensive" part of the main challenge, especially since Tibalt (and r/b in general) isn't known for his circumspection. Will I lose points and/or be DQ'ed if I use a definition of "defensive" that Tibalt might believe in, even if that wouldn't be how most people (i.e., non-psychopaths) would define it?

Added clarification:

"Defensive", apart from being reactive, means "Not offensive". Simple check: Could the effect be considered an attack? The answer must be a clear "No".

Ok, what about something that is clearly a retaliation? I'm sorry to be a pain, I'm just really struggling to come up with what sort of magic a half-mad sadistic devil-man would do that couldn't be considered an attack.

EDIT: Added an example of what I'm thinking of to the challenge - would that count?

@slimytrout Not DQable, but you would likely not get full points for the main challenge for it. Retaliation is an attack of sorts. I'm sure you'll find something more suitable in

So to be clear: A burn spell wouldn't be considered a defensive spell no matter what? Or should there be a flavorful reason for it to be in defense?

Secondly, does the spec need to name our character? Would Lunar Force or Price of Betrayal count?

@Ryder you might have too much faith in me. The problem isn't really the color combination per se (although as Subject16 has noted, red's tools really do lean toward the aggressive - I was able to find only a handful of red instants that seemed to qualify), it's that Tibalt's defining character trait is causing people pain, so I worry that any card that doesn't do that will lose me as many points on flavor as it will gain me on the main challenge.