December 2008 - MCC - Results

[Cashew]

1 - Luthervamplord - Cursed Tome
2 - Thunderhog - Undying Gorger
3 - evol_intention - Magical Marionette
4 - YWN - Mind Exchange

5. Artifactor - Life-Bearing Amulet
I don't' think this concept could have won, but would have done well. Ultimately I think a more interesting exchange such as tieing it into Avatar of Hope or giving control of it to the player with less life[/Card]. It also should tap to activate. Could definitely get very confusing in some decks or if several players are below 4 life.
Weak Points: Needs a tap
Strong Points: Interesting concept

6. kingez36@hotmail.co.uk - Roaring Drake
What happened here? I saw this card's earlier versions and it was quite good. This lost much of it's appeal and balance over the course of edits in the wrong directions. I can assure you I'd play a 3/2 flying flash creature for four mana, and probably never use it's alternative usage. You made it too good. Another miss on a winning idea.
Weak Points: Off wording, Little incentive for alternative play.
Strong Points: Innovative concept.

7. GG Crono - Decietful Efreet
Reminds me of a weaker Deep Analysis. I found the power level really low on this card as you're trading a 3/3 creature for two cards. I think you could have maybe dropped it to one mana or even up to three cards. Just really wanted to see it have that final tweak to make it shine. Was a really good idea.
Weak Points: Lacked that edge
Strong Points: Innovative concept.

8. Niv-Mizzet_Rulez! - Adjourning Mage
Reminds me of a Hunted (http://ww2.wizards.com/gatherer/index.aspx?term=Hunted&Field_Name=on&Field_Rules=on&Field_Type=on&setfilter=Ravnica:%20City%20of%20Guilds) creature. Although I think you missed an Orc from your picture.
Weak Points: Lacked that edge.
Strong Points: Solidly made card.

9. AncientSnake - Ice Rose
By Magic motifs I look at the name, the image, and I instantly assume we're going to sacrifice it for mana. So off the bat, I'm saying the flavor concept seems a tad off. Beyond that, at the uncommon level I probably would have made your card tap to "Snow" up a card.
Weak Points: Weak flavor concept
Strong Points: Good wording, ability concept

10. Azrael Subucni - Harvest Demon
Maybe too powerful. Hard to tell.
Weak Points: Questionable power level.
Strong Points: Good wording and powerful artwork.

11. p-chan - Prometheus' Flame
Planeshifting Eldamari's Vineyard is a solid and righteous thing to do. It also isn't going to win you anything. You just colored something a different color.
Weak Points: 100% lack of innovation.
Strong Points: Solidly made card.

12. George G - Academy Curriculum
Same artwork as Spellbook. Surely you could have found something. Could possibly even be DQ'ed for violating Wizards Copyright, at least you gave the artist credit. I'm very confused though as to why your card beyond being an enchantment mentions the Academy without any mention to Auras or Artifacts the major themes of the Tolarian Academy.
Weak Points: Artwork, Rules Adherence, Flavor Theme
Strong Points: Well-designed Card

13. HaydeX - Parsh Brennek
While I appreciate original artwork, my only qualm with this one is you could put it on any card and it'd be the same amorphous blob. Could definitely make some interesting decks with it though.
Weak Points: Non-fitting artwork, Johnny-fun card
Strong Points: Johnny-fun card (if you're a Johnny)

14. death_by_aggro - Deranged Tutor

Art's a little LQ, but meh.
It had the same effect on me. If you think "meh" you should maybe keep trying because I'm definitely going to think "meh" as well. There is NO point to putting the opponent's hand in a specific place if the library is later shuffled and the opponent can pull a card from anywhere regardless. This was an epic miss of what could have been a winning idea.
Weak Points: Low, low, low quality artwork, nonsenical logic
Strong Points: Innovative concept

15. Klassyreborn - Frostbite
So I play :4mana: and I expect the outcome to be a I destroy a creature and make a Blue Black one with Shroud for it's controller. Seems to me like it should be a :u::b: card. Regardless of a poor decision on the casting cost, I don't like the whole flavor of this being Frostbite. I also found it a very weak version of Crib Swap.
Weak Points: Not innovative, poor casting cost
Strong Points: Decent wording.

16. akashamar - Rage Elemental
I'm confused. Rage is very typically and almost always expressed in terms of +X/+0, not +X, +X. I'm also confused as to why a fire wolf is flying. Basically, I think your card if it was properly designed would just end up being an inferior Lightning Serpent.
Weak Points: Weak concept
Strong Points: Proper wording

17. mindfleischer - Rip off the Catacombs
From my understanding of the wording you'll only have to sacrifice once, they'll have to sacrifice everytime. Which means you could play this infinitly against an opponent. I think you missworded your card since by my and two others understandings you only have to sacrifice on the cast.
Weak Points: Unintended wording, time sinking card
Strong Points: Innovative concept

18. dvGreenFrog - Writ of the Horizons
Did you draw that artwork? It does match very well. Regardless, I think the card goes too far. As written this card would definitely be banned in most multiplayer formats due to it's level of power - especially Emp. Definitely warps the game excessively at way too low of a casting cost.
Weak Points: Game warping, overpowered at it's cost
Strong Points: Well worded, good art.

19. NeoMagicwarrior - Temporal Rift
How is this not Blue? Why is the artwork modern world? Why in the world is it Arcane and using Entwine?
Weak Points: Wrong colors, poor use of keywords, bad artwork
Strong Points: Proper wording.

20. Castle - Mental Possession
Severe need of spellcheck and grammar. Casting cost is too low.
Weak Points: Poor grammar and spelling. Casting cost.
Strong Points: Cool artwork. Cool multiplayer card.

21. Punkrockanarchymagic - Overgrown Gargoyles
Too much going on. I get that you had a concept, but it's far too disruptive and really doesn't make that much sense in the realm of magic. The creatures they get don't even have the ability to attack so there's no reason to combo in a Moat or Solitary Confinenment to end them.
Weak Points: Far-too disruptive, unbalanced, no incentive to play lands as an opponent
Strong Points: Worded properly.

22. b43gr - Deadland
Major wording error. You know how I play this card? I let it come into play. I let the ability trigger then in response sacrifice Deadland to kill a land. No need to exchange and potentially lose one of my own.
Weak Points: Major wording error, convuluted strip mine

23. eding - Milk and Cookies
Sorry not a holiday theme contest.
Weak Points: Extremely out of Magic.
Strong Points: Suprisingly well worded.

[dvGreenFrog]

Ouch! I don't understand how my card is overpowerful, especially considering any player can use the ability... AND, only once per turn. Also, if you noticed, any lands that come into play tapped do not trigger Writ of the Horizon's ability. "Whenever a player puts a land into play untapped you may pay 1." That means almost all combo lands, any vivid lands, or a library searcher that puts tapped lands into play would not trigger the ability. Of course I'm assuming that people are playing in tournaments with good land cards. (Not to mention, ever heard of bounce & discard combos? Although, idk why an opponent would ever bouce or destroy Writ of the Horizons.)

Cloudposts are not banned in -extended- single or multiplayer, and for that reason I disagree with your judgement completely and resent the fact that you would place it so low for only that reason. And I say only because the mana cost is perfect. Any more than three and there's no point in playing the card. Why would you pay so much land if that's what you need in the first place? Cloudposts are free to play, and you can certainly have more than one in play at a time.

And yes, I did do the artwork for my card. It does say my name at the bottom, where the artist's name goes. ;)

Also, may I suggest some format for the judging next time? A point system would allow for you to back up who gets what place.



This month was all about the gift-giving, and I feel that I was hugely slighted.

[Cashew]

Although, idk why an opponent would ever bouce or destroy Writ of the Horizons.
Then arguably wouldn't everyone play it if it was so beneficial? What about Howling Mine or Mana Flare, why would anyone ever destroy them? Because the person playing it is most likely going to use it's advantage far better than your deck will and in many cases it may highly disrupt your deck's design and inherent advantages.


Another aspect of YWN's cards is that they have the trademark and copyright symbols followed by Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
I find no legal recourse there, and if anything putting it there recognizes that the intellectual property (story framework, frame design, game mechanics, card backs) recognize that much of what we are working with is Wizards work even if it's custom-made. Further, attacking another player's card is never the best defense of your own.

Especially, when you're attacking a card for being over simple. When it's worded perfectly, arguably balanced perfectly, and has a heavily appeasing flavor (one of the main reasons it was chosen). The only card like it is Mindslaver, this actually improves on the design of a much hated card for the casual player, by making it more fun to play and play against. As is, it is the only entry I could see Wizards actually printing in their current designscape which says more than anything. It may be a little on the simple side, but simple is not a bad thing.

Rejudgings are never out of the question, but are rare. I haven't seen a good argument presented in your favor as Cloudposts are a different animal than your card all together - especially when my comment about bannings was not all multiplayer, but specific multiplayer formats.


for only that reason
You completly discounted other reasons I gave, but I'll spell them all out fully for you in a non-abridged version:
- The mana cost is too little for the amount of disruption it gives. Especially on an enchantment that any color deck can play.
- It is a colorless enchantment, yet reeks of aspects of Green and Blue.
- It is highly disruptive, yet is indestrutible increasing it's level of disruption by limiting how much can remove it.
- It is time consuming to have in play decreasing game enjoyability
- It is fairly wordy increasing misunderstanding of the card, despite being worded well.
- It suffers from "And then" syndrome doing more and more for seemingly no reason. Indestructible, colorless enchantment, alternative land acceleration, extra draw, any player usage. When you're trying to do as much as you did remember how Homer's Dream Car turned out:

http://magicdeckvortex.com/vbforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1831&stc=1&d=1230286455

[dvGreenFrog]

Then arguably wouldn't everyone play it if it was so beneficial? What about Howling Mine or Mana Flare, why would anyone ever destroy them? Because the person playing it is most likely going to use it's advantage far better than your deck will and in many cases it may highly disrupt your deck's design and inherent advantages


Everyone cannot play it because it is legendary. Did you even -read- the card? Let me repeat that. :ahem: Howling Mine and Mana Flare can be played by more than one person, this card may not. Also, in this case, drawing one more card is the only extra advantage I see if anything at all. Your opponent is gaining as much land as you are, plus you are losing the land which you give. That means you're practically decking yourself with that extra draw. Such an 'advantage' right?

You'll notice that, currently, nowhere does my post say anything about YWN's cards. I'll give you a situation to think about. An artist makes a song that uses samples which sound indistinguishable from the original and sounds pretty much like the original. Then they slap on the original artist's name and release the track. I don't even need to say anything further, but you can private message me for anything further on your end regarding that. I don't believe in knocking other people down becuase you aren't satisfied, but I do believe in fairness and legality.

Btw,

http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/6813/magiconlineoq5.png

Would you like me to write them and find out who's correct?


You completly discounted other reasons I gave, but I'll spell them all out fully for you in a non-abridged version:
- The mana cost is too little for the amount of disruption it gives. Especially on an enchantment that any color deck can play.
- It is a colorless enchantment, yet reeks of aspects of Green and Blue.
- It is highly disruptive, yet is indestrutible increasing it's level of disruption by limiting how much can remove it.
- It is time consuming to have in play decreasing game enjoyability
- It is fairly wordy increasing misunderstanding of the card, despite being worded well.
- It suffers from "And then" syndrome doing more and more for seemingly no reason. Indestructible, colorless enchantment, alternative land acceleration, extra draw, any player usage.

I did not discount your low cost reasoning. I'll reiterate it so you don't have to scroll to re-read my post. The mana cost is at 3 colorless because there'd be no point in getting more land if you already had enough. And, any lands that come into play tapped do not trigger the ability. Take a look at this (http://ww2.wizards.com/Gatherer/CardDetails.aspx?name=Crucible%20of%20Worlds) similar card. It might sway you.

It is colorless because I wanted it to be fair and highly usable. If I leaned toward one or two colors, your play-legality issues for the card would be more arguable, and I would have to agree that it would be too good. However, I believe it is not. The colorless aspect gives it a sense of giving, as this month's theme suggests. Another reason is that this card is not specific to which color of land is played.

It is only highly disruptive if the person would have to pay everytime an untapped land was put into play. They are not obligated in any way to use the ability.

If a person was that keen on playing a fast game, are they truly enjoying it? Or are they sitting at home taking their frustrations out on someone they probably never see in real life because that's the only way they know how? There are many, MANY ways around WotH if someone so chooses to dislike it's ability. And again, they can choose not to use it. Also, ever hear of F6 on MTGO? Saves tons of time.

The whole wordy comment is a complete oxymoron. "Yeah, it's wordy, but it's worded well..." There are too many other cards that are truly confusing/wordy to even consider my card being in that category.

To your 'and then' syndrome: If a person's library is being searched through, I can pretty much guarantee that it will be shuffled. Also, the person is losing a land out of their deck to someone else... the extra draw is compensation and I don't think 3 more words complicates the ability THAT much.


I await your response with courage and vigor.:p


EDIT: Let me show you a scenario.

It's your 4th turn and you have WotH in your hand with 3 lands out. You tap three lands and play the card. Your opponent(s) doesn't counter it, although they could, and you play a fourth land which is in your hand. The land comes into play untapped and the ability triggers on WotH. You are asked whether you want to pay or not and you choose to pay with the land you just played. You then search your library for the same card, put it into play tapped, then shuffle your libray and draw a card. If you were in multiplayer, and everyone else had at least one land untapped AND they chose to use the ability, you'd lose 3 more cards from your deck to them and draw three more cards on top of it. We could even say we're playing a 6 player game and then you just lost 5 more lands and drew 5 more cards.

With a 2hg multiplayer game, you could reduce your library by 8 cards with just playing 1 land untapped. If you had a 60 card deck, you'd be dead on one or two turns of the table. Not such a great advantage, is it?

And still, I feel you are forgetting that a lot of land cards that are played do not come into play untapped. This reduces the ability of WotH greatly!

Lastly,

As written this card would definitely be banned in most multiplayer formats due to it's level of power - especially Emp. Emperor formats ban cards that allow you to take an almost unstoppable stance as compared to the other players. I don't know what else I can say to prove to you that WotH is really not all that jazz when it comes to overly-powerful cards.

[ThunderHog]

I'm not there... Does this mean that I'm in the top 4?!?! :D

Assuming that's true, that means that YWN is in the top 4 too...

You haven't seen the last of me YWN. I WILL beat you - if not today (this round), then in the future!!!

[mindfleischer]

whether in the discussion thread nor in the workshop i got the response that i asked for - so i think: that is the reason for this ****ing 17th place.
thank u all...

[dvGreenFrog]

@mindfleischer

You may want to change around the wording of your card...

Right now, to play it you must sac one of your permanents. Then the effect/ability of the card comes through, which is where you'd take from their graveyard. Then they have to sac a permanent and can do the same. Lastly, you can repeat the process as many times as you want.

Alright. Now, when you repeat the process, you repeat it from where the ability/effect comes in, right? In order to play the card you sac a permanent, but you don't sacrifice anything as part of the effect/ability. That means that you can take freely from his or her graveyard, but he or she has to sac permanents to do the same to you? It's not very gifty or exchange-like if I'm correct...

Maybe you'd consider moving the sac on your end into the effect/ability so that you even out the losses and gains between players? In multiplayer, this card has the possibility to completely devastate your opponents at almost no cost to you!

You would have had 13 minutes to fix it had you seen it when I posted.

AND, I wouldn't complain. I got 18th and my card didn't have a horrible mistake.

[KlassyReborn]

Well i can't complain for a card, in your words, lacked originality. Meh, top 20 atleast, better than last month. Who can complain about that?

[eding]

23. eding - Milk and Cookies
Sorry not a holiday theme contest.
Weak Points: Extremely out of Magic.
Strong Points: Suprisingly well worded.

i think i'm on a roll. don't worry guys, with me around, you'll never be last.
-- and surprisingly?? sheesh.

[Punkrockanarchymagic]

I know this was my first attempt and all, but, as a freshman to this contest, I feel like I just got hazed.

Was my card really so bad that the only worse cards were one where the major wording error negated the card's intended effect, and another card that wasn't on theme? Many people who scored higher than me either had cards which had serious wording issues, low quality artwork, or closely mirrored a mechanic from a pre-existing card.

"no incentive to play lands as an opponent"? Would you apply this statement to Blood Moon or Back to Basics? Opponents being discouraged from playing/using non-basic lands is an intentional effect. The subtle tactic of keeping opponents from playing/using those non-basics was an important part of the card that I feel got overlooked. And what about basic lands? My opponents would have much MORE of an incentive to play basic lands instead of non-basic. Hosing non-basic lands is an important part of magic that keeps the game healthy, not to mention affordable.

Moat does not combo so well with cards that give opponents FLYING creatures.

I really honestly thought my card would do a lot better. It's very powerfull and a little wordy, and yes I admit that in many formats it's unbalanced, but I know it's better than 21st out of 23.

I will have my revenge.

@dvGreenFrog: Looks like I wasn't right enough. At least you did better than me!

@YWN: Please dont take the following as a personal attack- I dont know you, but I know your card, and I really dislike your card's effect, as well as Cashew's defense of it.

P.S.-



The only card like it is Mindslaver, this actually improves on the design of a much hated card for the casual player, by making it more fun to play and play against. As is, it is the only entry I could see Wizards actually printing in their current designscape which says more than anything. It may be a little on the simple side, but simple is not a bad thing.

It's not "like" mindslaver. It is Mindslaver, but hardly an improved design... its an undercosted one (remember that Mindslaver needs a total of ten mana to go off), with an obvious and poorly-imagined drawback to justify being undercosted.

Did you ever see the movie "The Mystery Men"? There's a character named the Sphinx, who is reputedly quite mysterious, but actually just applies a formula to statements by reversing their wording to make them sound mysterious. Another character catches on and is able to mock the Sphinx by predicting his next statement. That what YWN's card is- predictable and unimaginitive. He wasn't the only player to post a card which changed the controler of a turn. Re-inventing Mindslaver is simple (I'm sure we could all make Mindslavers for each color... Red gets coin-flip, Black gets pay life, Green referances creatures, etc), but simple isn't always good- sometimes simple is obvious and boring.

Also, giving your opponent access to the effect of an annoying card does not make it less annoying, especially if you get the effect first.

Casual players hate Mindslaver for a reason- losing/gaining control of turns isn't fun, and not fun equals not healthy for the game. That's why Wizards would not print YWN's card. I dont think that Wizards will ever print another card that does what Mindslaver does, unless they reprint Mindslaver, which would be a mistake IMO.

[George G]

"For this month, feel free to use custom images, or Magic artwork."

It says in the rules I can use magic artwork, did I interpret that wrong?

[dvGreenFrog]

I don't know if anyone else would support this idea, but I like the thought of having a pre-competition round where the judge(s?) tell you what to keep and what to throw. That way, everyone can see how the judge(s) feel about the card and will have a chance to edit accordingly. I mean, I wouldn't want us to brown-nose or anything... but just so we know what it takes to win this darned thing. At least that way we can see whether it will be worth the time and thought or not.


@George

When I read the rules that's exactly how I saw it. There was no clarity at all, imho. And if you really ask me, I think these competitions are beginning to get too political and cheesed. This was my first entry, sure, but I have gone back and studied the past months. It doesn't take a rocket-scientist to see the favoritism. And, I have defended myself with what I believe to be conclusive evidence, but still... no reply. It figures.

[Artifactor]

OMG!!! fifth place sweet now i'm ready for next month

[George G]

I would also like to say that I don't personally know YWN either, and I'm not even going to argue about the "flavor" of his card, that's up to the judges. I just want to ask the judge or judges if they noticed the absence of the reminder text that says "mana burn doesn't cause loss of life" for the exchanged turns. If they did notice, why is that not considered overpowered when so many other trivial things are? It's now a blue direct damage spell at the LEAST!

I don't know how we could please everyone, I think maybe a mandatory workshop a week before judging where you guys can rip us for all that is wrong, let everyone get thier complaints in on all other cards for questions of legality, have rulings on them to vindicate those complaints or shut them up, then let everyone make the changes to the cards and hope.

I want to also say for as high as the competition is we have a lot of people eager to help others, this is a great contest every month with few complaints.

[KlassyReborn]

I would also like to say that I don't personally know YWN either, and I'm not even going to argue about the "flavor" of his card, that's up to the judges. I just want to ask the judge or judges if they noticed the absence of the reminder text that says "mana burn doesn't cause loss of life" for the exchanged turns. If they did notice, why is that not considered overpowered when so many other trivial things are? It's now a blue direct damage spell at the LEAST!

one word: Mindslaver

[evol_intentions]

my name is not on there?!?!?! is that good, is that bad.... have i come from next to last place last month to TOP 4!!!! this month, only cashew can tell, woooooo ( i think)

[Cashew]

I await your response with courage and vigor.

I'll put it simple since you lost meaning in the detailed. Your card did too much for too little. As well, you attempted to do many new things. It's better to take one simple new idea than five and compact it into a single card. I'd rather see one great idea that is simple and innovative than five interesting ideas thrown together on a card.

As to the whole political thing, it's hogwash. I generally look through all the cards and make a short list of ones to submit. Usually I have categories this month the categories ended up being gift cards, exchange makers, double-edged cards, and constantly changing hands cards. Then I judge the rest. If I find one during judging that I misjudged it gets put onto the submission list. This month, it was Cursed Tome that I still have issues with being cramped. However on looking back the wording and reminder texts were all necessary to the simple primary function of the card.

I selected a double-edged card that I thought was the best it was YWN's. I often select his cards not because I like the guy (I find him pompous and a jerk), but because they are always extremely thought out, usually immaculately worded and balanced. This time, what tipped him over the edge was the card's powerful flavor. If he happens to win or get picked a lot, it's for the same reason Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant always stood out - they regularly outshine the competition and rarely disappoint.

Magical Marionette won the gift card category although it was close. I was originally going to pick Roaring Drake, but I found it's secondary usage to be extremely secondary. The Efreet also fell in the same boat as an amazing idea that needed a better final design.

The exchange category was reamed out due to only one true exchange maker. To be totally honest, I didn't particularly like any of the cards. Myself and others found the entire pool of cards extremely weak this month as a whole. Another user had already messaged me about the four chose as he put it and I later stole the "best of the worst."

Maybe we'll try a revamp for January with a preliminary to weed out the bad cards and designers early in the month. With this syllabus. However I can assure you numerical judging can and will stifle creativity replacing it with nuance. Look at the Olympics.

Points:
Wording:
5 - No wording mistakes
4 - Minor spelling and syntax errors.
3 - Major spelling and syntax errors.
2 - Errors that change the meaning of the card.
1 - Errors that cause the card to not work.
0 - Card is flawed beyond all recognition.

Balance:
5 - No Balance Issues
4 - Slightly unbalanced
3 - Fairly unbalanced
2 - Moderately unbalanced
1 - Heavily unbalanced
0 - No attention paid to the balance scale

Casting Cost:
5 - Perfect casting cost
4 - Slightly over or undercosted
3 - Fairly over or undercosted and/or questionable color issues.
2 - Moderately over or undercosted and/or apparent color issues.
1 - Heavily over or undercosted and/or major color issues.
0 - No regard to color scheme and/or no regard to casting cost and/or incorrect usage of hybrid/multicolor symbols.

Text Aesthetics:
5 - Text has no negative impact on the card.
4 - Card is too cramped due to bad spacing
3 - Card is too cramped due to excessive text.
2 - Card is too cramped with text due to unnecessary wording or abilities.
1 - Card is massively over cramped.
0 - No attention paid to text aesthetics.

Image Aesthetics:
5 - Image has a positive effect on the card as a whole.
4 - Image is appropriate and pleasant to the eye.
3 - Image is questionable to the card as a whole.
2 - Image is low quality or doesn't make sense to the card.
1 - Image detracts from the card as a whole.
0 - Image is entirely negative to the card aspect.
DQ - Image is copyrighted.

Technical Aesthetics:
5 - Card's technical aesthetics are appeasing.
4 - One of the following: Poor Set Symbol, Bad Artist Name, Poor Render, Other
3 - Two of the following: Poor Set Symbol, Bad Artist Name, Poor Render, Other
2 - Three of the following: Poor Set Symbol, Bad Artist Name, Poor Render, Other
1 - Four of the following: Poor Set Symbol, Bad Artist Name, Poor Render, Other
0 - Massive Technical Flaws.
DQ - Own name in artist without creating image

Innovation:
5 - Card attempts something new in the current design scape of Magic
4 - Card attempts something new that works outside the current design scape.
3 - Card has a discernible lack of creativity.
2 - Card attempts something new that doesn't work outside the current design scape.
1 - Card is wholly inventive rather than innovative.
0 - No attempt at innovation or creativity.
DQ - Creation of new keywords or undefined concepts such as triple hybrids.

Flavor:
5 - Card has an overall appeasing flavor.
4 - One aspect of the card distracts from overall flavor.
3 - Card lacks any overall flavor.
2 - Card has a disjointed flavor.
1 - Card has a negative flavor impact.
0 - Any portion of the card is out of the flavor of Magic or specified Magic era.

Overall Design
5 - Card could see print.
4 - Card has very few minor mistakes.
3 - Card has several minor mistakes.
2 - Card has moderate mistakes that need fixing.
1 - Card has heavy mistakes that need fixing.
0 - Card needs an entire re-design.

Categories would then be combined to form a composite score as such:
Overall Aesthetics: (0/5)
Overall Artistry (Flavor & Innovation): (0/5)
Overall Balance: (0/10)
Overall Wording: (0/5)
Overall Design: (0/10)
Total Score: (0/35)

[KlassyReborn]

So now that i've had my fair share of fail, what can we expect for january?

[Muse&Force734]

Hey guys-

I skipped this month (I would have done terribly), and I'm glad I did. As an outsider, I feel as though I'm seeing a some uncharacteristic misjudging from you, Cashew. Especially with George G- his card (In my opinion) was a very well designed, elegant card that was pushed back due to...strange reasons. If I remember correctly, about half of the entries for the "Legend>Planeswalker, Creature>Legend" had artwork that was simply a stretched version of an earlier artwork. I may be wrong, but we accepted a lot of those entries despite their artwork.

@ Greenfrog: While I don't think your card is incredibly broken (certainly not ban-able), I think it is a bit too powerful in team formats. Simply changing "player" to "opponent" would have solved that. It's definitely a flawed card, yes.
From a personal standpoint: I love this card. I'm a huge fan of chaos multiplayer. It's a great way to make friends while accelerating yourself.

Now normally I wouldn't agree with Greenfrog (on YWN's lack of a "no mana burn" clause) on what seems to be quite a menial point, but it seems that these little points were constantly coming and messing with people's scores. Once again, I have to bring up George G. You bagged on him a bit for making an "academy" card without a reference to artifacts or enchantments. "Academy" is a very broad word. "Lotus" or "Sliver" I could understand.

Look Cashew- I love this contest and this site. I think that we've got a great thing going here, but every so often things must be revamped a bit. I am getting a bit tired of seeing YWN in every top 4, no matter what. He is a great designer, but someone makes the top 4 constantly without every having any real criticisms, it's only natural to consider a bit of a bias. I suppose that in all, I just think that it's time for more than one judge per month. A little system of checks and balances, you know?

Regardless, I think Cashew did a pretty good job, and there were a lot of cool entries this month, (my personal favorites included Luther's Cursed Tome and Evol's Magical Marionette) Good job all, and I look foreword to next month!

[akashmar]

16. akashamar - Rage Elemental
I'm confused. Rage is very typically and almost always expressed in terms of +X/+0, not +X, +X. I'm also confused as to why a fire wolf is flying. Basically, I think your card if it was properly designed would just end up being an inferior Lightning Serpent.
Weak Points: Weak concept
Strong Points: Proper wording

oh man you completely got the wrong idea, cashew. "confused" doesn't even describe it.

1. I understand that the word Rage is usually associated with +X/+0, but it's definitely not a staple or a keyword. see fit of rage, misguided rage, myojin of infinite rage, phyrexian rager, primal rage,rage forger and so on.

2. The title of the piece of art on the artist's page (http://el-ronin.deviantart.com/art/Fire-Beast-Titan-67516838) is: "Fire beast Titan", Couldn't that be described as an elemental?

no offense cashew, but a more in depth look of the card might have changed your opinion about it. I understand now how the evaluation system worked, and i agree that change is necessary. MuseandForce has an excellent point.

[Muse&Force734]

I read your edit Cashew-- Thanks. This is sure to improve not only the contest but the overall quality of the cards. In retrospect, I was harsh to accuse you of favoritism. The truth is, YWN does periodically beat out a good portion of the competition. To suggest that his winnings were your doing was not only an unfair assumption but an insult to YWN's talents.
I believe that this contest was not one of the best. I believe that there were a few inconsistencies in judging a few cards, and the system wasn't yet perfected so it was harder to follow the rules consistently. But I have to say, Cashew- this quick, thorough changing of the contest was done very, very well. I'm sure next month will be good. I only Wizards would solve questions as fast as you did.

[George G]

Amen, well put everyone, Thanks Cashew for changes and the passion for the contest. Great job, Great attitude.

[dvGreenFrog]

I hope nobody thinks that I'm mean, or perhaps looking for something to fight about... I'm really not that type of person. Sometimes I get too defensive, that's all. So I'm sorry for anything that came across like that.

I appreciate the above addition. It gives me something to bounce off of for next month.

=] I'm very excited!

[Punkrockanarchymagic]

@Cashew: Thanks for posting the point system. It's much clearer now how the cards are being judged. I also appriciate your work on the MCC. I just don't like Mindslaver. That is all (until the new year).

[ThunderHog]

*tear* I did it!!! I beat YWN!!! *runs around like an idiot until he trips and falls into an oddly stacked pile of randomly placed cacti* Ouch...

However, now I have a new target... This isn't the first time I've come just behind Luther in the standings of a card-creation contest. Luther, you're next on my list. :devil:

(congratz by the way - :D)

@ Cashew: What were your thoughts about my card? I'm curious.

[Niv-Mizzet_Rulez!]

Wow, 8th. I did a lot better then expected, and yes i saw the third orc. I just though it might be to good for the opponent to get three orcs out of it, but for the sake of the art i should have made it three. Oh well my mistake.

[Luthervamplord]

http://magicdeckvortex.com/vbforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1851&stc=1&d=1231423253

Bring it on little piggy: Bring it on!

(Thank You though, to everyone)

Now, if you'll excuse me - I have a YWN to rub this result in the face of.