(If you could break down any of the builds, without truly scoring of course, in each category briefly and explain how one of the absolute builds scores higher in each category than mine for instance I would appreciate it.)
That's the thing... for me at least, when I am picking my top decks I don't go through and rate everyone on the judging matrix. That's what playtesting is for. It is in the back of my mind, but I'm mostly looking at the overall feel of the deck. It's very possible, and this has happened to me already, that I pick a deck for the top 8 because it looks cool and fun, but after playtesting it I end up rating it pretty low for one reason or another. When picking, I don't look for any one particular thing, but more things along the lines of using cards that aren't commonly seen, or using common cards in uncommon ways, or unique & original ideas, or just a good overall mix of cards. Another big part of it is that if I'm going to be playing and testing these decks, I go for something that looks fun to me, that I will enjoy testing. The "to me" is a big part because a lot of this is really subjective, everyone has a different style (Johnny/Spike/Timmy/etc), and each judge will also have a different opinion. To be fair, I was one of the two that picked you chefstix, so I can't speak for the other judges as to why they didn't.
Did anyone test either Dawn Charm or Dash Hopes? They were in my colours and I completely forgot about the protection they offer.
I was messing around with a build very similar to eclipseverity's, and was actually running 4x Dawn Charm because I felt targeted discard and burn could potentially be very bad for the deck. I think it's a pretty useful choice.
I was messing around with a build very similar to eclipseverity's, and was actually running 4x Dawn Charm because I felt targeted discard and burn could potentially be very bad for the deck. I think it's a pretty useful choice.
Also great against Mill. My build mainly tore apart my opponent's hand so it often wasn't needed, but there were a few burn match-ups where I desperately wanted a counter.
If I find a great idea or synergy, I don't want to lose points if someone else posted early because they don't have a job or they live on this site 24/7.
Comments like this are unnecessary. I dont know everyones specific circumstance, but dont let your sour grapes make you look like an idiot. Its one thing to say oh, I didnt make top 8 this week, maybe next week. But to attack people who beat you is rather low.
I participated sporadically in the past 3 seasons. There were rounds I didnt get into the top 8, sure at times i wanst happy about it, but I just kept submitting decks. This contest turns you into a better deck builder.
It looks very "flat". If you take out both Near-Death Experience and Mischievous Poltergeist. The deck no longer looks like a NDE deck. Nothing else supports the idea. If you add in some other two card combo it becomes a different deck. Now if you added more things that had synergy you would have instantly made a better deck.
For example, you could have added Sustaining Spirit or Children of Korlis. Something with more synergy then just counterspells, tutors, and removal.
I also agree with King that I feel we need some other way to post the decks. I also work and can't post decks as fast as other people so I need to rush a deck when I get home Sunday nights (usually around 11pm) and throw a deck together to try and stake claim to some kind of idea.
I posted my deck Sunday night and it literally took me about 20 minutes to do it. I haven't touched it since. I see far to many people reedit their post over and over. Just get a deck together and post it and be done with it.
Didn't know Dash Hopes existed. Totally would have played it in my build. Tried to find a counter originally for it.
Yeah, it has good synergy too, because you can pay the 5 life to counter it. I was also going to try Deepwood Ghoul, solely based on it's survivability compared to Wall of Blood, but paying an even amount of life seemed like it would involve too much circumstance. Wall of Blood let me pay exactly what I needed, and most people didn't recognize it as a threat.
I admit I haven't gone through everyone's deck list, so maybe the answer is right in front of me, but I thought about Nihilistic Glee as well. Did anyone try that? It's Hellbent ability is mostly what I'm talking about, but maybe that would have taken the focus off Near-Death Experience.
Either way, very cool choice for this round. Can't wait for the next one.
Yeah, it has good synergy too, because you can pay the 5 life to counter it. I was also going to try Deepwood Ghoul, solely based on it's survivability compared to Wall of Blood, but paying an even amount of life seemed like it would involve too much circumstance. Wall of Blood let me pay exactly what I needed, and most people didn't recognize it as a threat.
Yeah, it has good synergy too, because you can pay the 5 life to counter it. I was also going to try Deepwood Ghoul, solely based on it's survivability compared to Wall of Blood, but paying an even amount of life seemed like it would involve too much circumstance. Wall of Blood let me pay exactly what I needed, and most people didn't recognize it as a threat.
I admit I haven't gone through everyone's deck list, so maybe the answer is right in front of me, but I thought about Nihilistic Glee as well. Did anyone try that? It's Hellbent ability is mostly what I'm talking about, but maybe that would have taken the focus off Near-Death Experience.
Either way, very cool choice for this round. Can't wait for the next one.
Am I missing something here? Dash Hopes is a terrible card, in most situations and especially in the context of this week's card. Of course your opponents are going to take the 5-life loss, since a lot of this week's submissions don't focus on making the opponent lose life. It will never counter a spell. And if you're using it to lose 5-life for yourself, then there are much better cards to do that. Not to mention it is a conditional life-loss, since it requires a spell to be on the stack (yours or opponent's), and you have to do it on your own turn, otherwise your opponent can choose to lose 5-life first (active player chooses first).
Anyway, I'm shocked that there were only 3 Worship decks, although the abundance of Angel's Grace made up for that...
Another interesting point is that only 4 decks ran full playsets of Near-Death Experience, and nobody in the top 8 is running full playsets. I think that may be a CDCC first?
urweak's responses to KingT and chefstix hit the nail on the head.
I can't speak for the other judges, but i was intentionally much more lenient on similar ideas cropping up for this one because the strategy is so linear. So if 6 people came up with method x, I wouldn't shun them for being un-original, because this card has so much more room for independent discoveries than any other card this season. That being said, it did put them in greater competition with each other because they were so much more directly comparable. Don't hold back on your initial concept because someone else did something similar first. Just post your deck without looking at what others are doing and you'll be fine. First and foremost, we want to play fun decks that have a shot at winning, if a build can't deliver on either of those then the originality never comes into play.
Just got to say, you've definitely earned distinction as an MTGS hero
Quote from Stardust »
Because he's the hero MTGS deserves, and the one it needs right now. So we'll global him. Because he can take it. Because he's not just our hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector. An expired rascal.
Quote from LuckNorris »
ExpiredRascals you sir are a god-like hero.
Quote from Lanxal »
ER is a masterful god who cannot be beaten in any endeavour.
I posted my deck Sunday night and it literally took me about 20 minutes to do it. I haven't touched it since. I see far to many people reedit their post over and over. Just get a deck together and post it and be done with it.
I can't agree 100% with this. This is my first CDCC season, but something I learned from rounds 0 & 1 is that playtesting is a big part of the deck building process. Some ideas seem really good on paper, but if judges are playtesting to score the decks, it's probably a good idea to fine tune them the same way. I built my Mosswort Bridge deck "post mortem" and there's a couple tweaks I could've done to it to score a little bit higher. For this round I had an Isochron Scepter for Silence/Counterspell on a stick... it didn't perform as expected and got the shaft.
However, the main concept of each deck is what can get you in the top 8, and that can be posted as soon as you see it in your mind (an are able to visit the forum, of course).
I posted my deck Sunday night and it literally took me about 20 minutes to do it. I haven't touched it since. I see far to many people reedit their post over and over. Just get a deck together and post it and be done with it.
I'm glad you have enough card knowledge to throw a great deck together in 20 minutes. Not all of us are so lucky. I took a good 13 year break from magic so there are many cards I don't know. I playtest my decks thoroughly so I know that they preform under many situations. I don't understand why editing the decks is bad? I playtested mine so much I ended up proxied it and now play it against the 40+ different decks in my meta. Sure it doesn't do so well against near legacy aggro goblins and merfolk but other than that it is very balanced. That is largely thanks to playtesting.
Am I missing something here? Dash Hopes is a terrible card, in most situations and especially in the context of this week's card. Of course your opponents are going to take the 5-life loss, since a lot of this week's submissions don't focus on making the opponent lose life. It will never counter a spell. And if you're using it to lose 5-life for yourself, then there are much better cards to do that. Not to mention it is a conditional life-loss, since it requires a spell to be on the stack (yours or opponent's), and you have to do it on your own turn, otherwise your opponent can choose to lose 5-life first (active player chooses first).
I was just asking if anyone tested it. Someone played it against me when I was testing this deck and I (obviously) opted to lose 5 life. Just wondering if anyone played it from their side.
For that reason Mischievous Poltergeist was the better card. It did something similar to Deepwood Ghoul plus flying, and had the 1 life per activation like Wall of Blood.
I take that as a direct affront to my deckbuilding skills.
The OP was updated to include a link to the [official] CDCC 4 general discussion thread, that theoretically is supposed to be used for discussion not dealing only with the current round but the contest as a whole. [/hint]
Being the first to post a specific idea is a relative small plus to me. My priority is to choose different concepts. The objective reason is that by testing different concepts, one's more likely to find something favourable. Subjectively, I want variety during testing. If there are too many different or multiple based on roughly the same idea, I choose, what I think to be, the most coherent list(s) among them. This would include synergy and convertibility.
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.
I'm glad you have enough card knowledge to throw a great deck together in 20 minutes. Not all of us are so lucky. I took a good 13 year break from magic so there are many cards I don't know. I playtest my decks thoroughly so I know that they preform under many situations. I don't understand why editing the decks is bad? I playtested mine so much I ended up proxied it and now play it against the 40+ different decks in my meta. Sure it doesn't do so well against near legacy aggro goblins and merfolk but other than that it is very balanced. That is largely thanks to playtesting.
And thats my point. This competition makes you a better deck builder. Just keep at it and you will get better.
I can't agree 100% with this. This is my first CDCC season, but something I learned from rounds 0 & 1 is that playtesting is a big part of the deck building process. Some ideas seem really good on paper, but if judges are playtesting to score the decks, it's probably a good idea to fine tune them the same way. I built my Mosswort Bridge deck "post mortem" and there's a couple tweaks I could've done to it to score a little bit higher. For this round I had an Isochron Scepter for Silence/Counterspell on a stick... it didn't perform as expected and got the shaft.
However, the main concept of each deck is what can get you in the top 8, and that can be posted as soon as you see it in your mind (an are able to visit the forum, of course).
My Q0.02.
Yes I play test mine too. But only about 5 or so games on MWS. If it works then I post it. If not, then I will mess with it alittle more till it does work. But this week long edit fest people seem to do isnt the way to go.
If anyone wants some insight into my deck choice here it is.
From there I knew I needed a way to play NDE quicker then turn 5. So Academy Rector came into mind. Also if I could just hard cast it faster, that would be great too. The artifact mana help with that. While I was going with artifact mana, I wanted something that fit me losing life, so i picked the Talisman's. Since I was in black, I added the two best black tutors Vampiric Tutor & Demonic Tutor.
Once I figured out what I need to almost kill myself with, and to find what I needed to do that. I need to protect myself from being killed. Thats where Angel's Grace comes in. Sure I could have used counters, but this card protects me way better then counters could, plus it puts me at the life total I want to be at (thats why I said it should be in every deck this round). But I needed some other protection. Wall of Denial is a big blocker, Swords to Plowshares is removal, and I could careless if my opponent gained life so it went into the deck. Wrath of God & Damnation are removal, but they also go well with Academy Rector. If my opponent doesnt want to kill my Rector, I can just Wrath/Damnation him away to search for an enchantment. Propaganda & Ghostly Prison went in because they were protection, but also because I could cheat them into play with Academy Rector.
Then I wanted some draw spells. I was thinking about using blue's draw spells to help me. But since I want to lose life, I went with the black draw spells.
Once I had all the cards I wanted, I put together my mana base. My mana base comes from my knowledge of competitive vintage. Decks in that format run Fetch + Dual packages with protection from wasteland via basic lands. In a casual format, you dont need to really worry about wasteland, but basics are cheaper then dual lands. Flooded Strand gets me Scrubland, Tundra, Underground Sea and my Plains. Marsh Flats does all of that, plus gets me my Swamp which is why I have 4 instead of 2 like flooded. The City of Brass is linked only to NDE since it makes you lose life. High Market is only for Academy Rector.
Anyways, I dont know if this helps anyone. But I figured I would post my thought process in the hopes it might help someone else.
Wrath of God & Damnation are removal, but they also go well with Academy Rector. If my opponent doesnt want to kill my Rector, I can just Wrath/Damnation him away to search for an enchantment.
May I ask why you chose Wrath/Damnation over Day of Judgment? You can't sweep with Mischievous Poltergeist in play since it doesn't allow regeneration, and I would assume a progression like T2- Mana Generator, T3 Poltergeist, T4 Rector for T5 Sweep into Near-Death Experience was part of what you were going for.
May I ask why you chose Wrath/Damnation over Day of Judgment? You can't sweep with Mischievous Poltergeist in play since it doesn't allow regeneration, and I would assume a progression like T2- Mana Generator, T3 Poltergeist, T4 Rector for T5 Sweep into Near-Death Experience was part of what you were going for.
I didnt think about that. The use of the wrath effects was really as a last ditch effort, its main goal is to clear the opponents side of the table. I would much rather Flash Rector for NDE.
Another interesting point is that only 4 decks ran full playsets of Near-Death Experience, and nobody in the top 8 is running full playsets. I think that may be a CDCC first?
I ran one copy in Main and one in Board, but the deck was DEFINITELY based around that card... The point of one NDE was to limit me drawing one, I mean I could always play it but then it would result in a sorcery based win. :/
I got a vote for a terribad Sliver that I never tested in round 1, but this deck was tested, original and had a back-up plan...
EDIT: This post was specifically for this CDCC: NDE
Probably because he's extremely easy to get rid of. 1 toughness, non-black, utility creatures tend to die to just about any deck, something that keeps a player alive will (usually) die fast. Worship on the other hand is an enchantment, which is usually harder to remove than creatures, and it doesn't require a specific creature to be in play.
Ali is one of those cards that seem awesome at first glance, but prove to be bad in actual play.
Yeah Fortune Thief has the surprise factor over Ali of Cairo. Most people are able to think ahead far enough to Shock Ali before trying to kill you haha. It would have been cool to have seen a morph subtheme in Salty's deck. The only reason is because once you pull that morph trick on someone, Fortune Thief's survivability rate in the next round plummets.
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.
Yeah neither is frederickwaffles name is that list.
I'm not trying to come across as sounding like I'm just complaining. I have judging experience IRL for culinary events and if we are given a matrix to judge upon we are expected to judge upon that matrix. That is the only reason I was/am slightly upset as I don't feel the judges are following the matrix when they grade. Two judges have admitted they choose first based on what is "fun", not what would score high based on the matrix. If there were 8 worship builds, for example, and 20 other completely unique and fun builds that were just not as good as those 8 worship builds then in all fairness the 8 worship builds should be voted in the top 8. If I judged like this IRL when I did the competitions I would never be allowed to judge again.
Anway, I've spoken my mind. I will drop this as past this I don't seen it being very constructive and don't desire any kind of confrontation.
Anway, Urweak my original purpose of my comments was to find out where I went wrong . I'm not trying to say anyone's decks sucked that made the top 8. I just am curious where I could have improved my build.
The only thing I can think of is maybe adding in Academy Rector for the instant speed play of NDE but avoided that as I was already running a pretty common theme in worship. More people used the Rector then the worship I believe so I just wanted to keep one of them.
I have judging experience IRL for culinary events and if we are given a matrix to judge upon we are expected to judge upon that matrix. That is the only reason I was/am slightly upset as I don't feel the judges are following the matrix when they grade. Two judges have admitted they choose first based on what is "fun", not what would score high based on the matrix. If there were 8 worship builds, for example, and 20 other completely unique and fun builds that were just not as good as those 8 worship builds then in all fairness the 8 worship builds should be voted in the top 8.
That's a good point. I haven't quite found a good counter yet, but wouldn't you find this a horribly boring top 8?
Unless one'd change the submission to be done via PM, people would simply ~copy the anticipated objectively best deck if diversity wasn't valued appropriately.
Assuming that's done, judges would need to be enforced to choose the 'best' decks - because they, obviously and as admitted, have a preference for not testing the same deck eight times - what means someone had to know ex ante what these are. That this would most likely be me, doesn't bother me as much, as demanding this knowledge, putting this much influence into the hands of one person and going his far for a contest that is supposed to be fun for all participants, incuding judges.
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.
In my opinion, "fun" decks are usually decks that match all the judging criteria.
1. A fun deck is original - nobody really enjoys playing something they've played millions of times already.
2. A fun deck uses the card effectively - not doing so would mean you have created a bad deck with anti-synergy or an unrelated strategy that takes away from the fun this card creates.
3. A fun deck has elegance and good card selection - I don't find it fun to play a deck with random cards stuck in it, and with no tuning done so I can never get the deck to work as it should.
4. A fun deck can win - even Johnnies like me who would be satisfied with winning just 25% of the time don't like a deck that loses all the time. Nobody likes that.
5. A fun deck interacts with other decks - Interaction is pretty much half of what Magic is all about.
Granted, each of these 5 points may not get equal treatment in picking the top 8, but there is no doubt that each do influence the votes one way or another.
If there were 8 worship builds, for example, and 20 other completely unique and fun builds that were just not as good as those 8 worship builds then in all fairness the 8 worship builds should be voted in the top 8.
I guess Originality doesn't mean as much to you. IMO, if you're using Worship, you better have a very good reason for using it. If I was judging, I'd give that deck a 0 in originality, unless something else about it used Worship in a very creative way. The very fact that they used Worship means those decks "were just not as good". Granted, if they tweaked it well enough, they would get 4/5's in every other category. But if we compare it to the "unique and fun" deck who gets a top score in Originality and some other category, I believe the overall point total would be even. So in your example, there probably should be 4 Worship decks and 4 "unique, fun" decks making the top 8.
I ran one copy in Main and one in Board, but the deck was DEFINITELY based around that card... The point of one NDE was to limit me drawing one, I mean I could always play it but then it would result in a sorcery based win. :/
I got a vote for a terribad Sliver that I never tested in round 1, but this deck was tested, original and had a back-up plan...
EDIT: This post was specifically for this CDCC: NDE
I didn't mean or say that running fewer than a certain number of copies of Near-Death Experience affected top 8 votes. I just said it was interesting, since CDCC picks usually are played in full playsets, and this seemed to be a pick that broke away from that trend.
IMO, the reason your deck didn't make Top 8 is because you have a strategy that is far stronger than winning by Near-Death Experience. Why would you want to risk winning at 1-life when you can win with say 15 life by attacking with Titans? Near-Death Experience is a card that makes you go out of your way to win. It takes time and effort to set up, and multiple cards have to be in place. On the contrary, you just play Primeval Titan, take advantage of its abilities and win by attacking. Which choice would most people make? I'd say the latter. I liked your deck and it had lots of potential, but Titan Ramp doesn't really belong here.
Two judges have admitted they choose first based on what is "fun", not what would score high based on the matrix.
Please don't put words in our mouth, nowhere did anybody say we choose first based on what is fun, only that it is a consideration, as it should be when you are playing a game. Magic is a game afterall, right? Let me quote myself here: "when I am picking my top decks I don't go through and rate everyone on the judging matrix. That's what playtesting is for. It is in the back of my mind, but I'm mostly looking at the overall feel of the deck. I don't look for any one particular thing, but more things along the lines of using cards that aren't commonly seen, or using common cards in uncommon ways, or unique & original ideas, or just a good overall mix of cards."
If there were 8 worship builds, for example, and 20 other completely unique and fun builds that were just not as good as those 8 worship builds then in all fairness the 8 worship builds should be voted in the top 8.
I think there is a problem in definitions here. If you meant the other 20 decks aren't as good, well, how do you mean? Not as powerful? Don't have the capacity to win? That's only one area of judging... If they are unique and fun that definitely counts for something. I don't think you can compare this contest to culinary competitions, or as someone previously did, olympic judging.
I'm not trying to come across as sounding like I'm just complaining. I have judging experience IRL for culinary events and if we are given a matrix to judge upon we are expected to judge upon that matrix. That is the only reason I was/am slightly upset as I don't feel the judges are following the matrix when they grade. Two judges have admitted they choose first based on what is "fun", not what would score high based on the matrix. If there were 8 worship builds, for example, and 20 other completely unique and fun builds that were just not as good as those 8 worship builds then in all fairness the 8 worship builds should be voted in the top 8. If I judged like this IRL when I did the competitions I would never be allowed to judge again.
Anway, I've spoken my mind. I will drop this as past this I don't seen it being very constructive and don't desire any kind of confrontation.
I think you're wrong here. I say this first because I think you're counting myself as one of the judges that flouts the judging rubric based on a misread of an earlier post of mine. Your demeanor speaks more to a disappointment with your decks' performance in the past couple rounds than to a rational evaluation of the judging process. "Fun" is what we shoot for in Magic. It is a game, a past-time, a hobby. The rubric is crafted to judge the decks based on this. Alluding to the "fun" factor of the deck is not departing from the specific rubric, but rather a way to refer to them in the gestalt.
Here's the rubric, and how it relates to "fun":
"Creativity/Originality: 0 to 5 points
How creative and original is your deck."
People (especially johnnies like me) like to play something new, something that nobody else has seen before and that people have no idea what's coming. Furthermore, this gives us the ability to separate the unique ideas based on the rubric itself.
Effectiveness/Card adherence: 0 to 5 points
How well does it use the selected card?
This is the least-directly related to the grander concept of fun, but hey, i don't think card adherence was any of the axes that you were calling into question.
Synergy/Tuning: 0 to 5 points
How well do the cards combine in the deck; elegance and card selection.
Beauty in design is something many of us enjoy. Seeing them come together in play just makes it so much better.
Power/Capacity to win: 0 to 5 points
Can the deck deliver the goods?
People like to win. Winning/pulling off your combo/putting up a fight/showing what your deck can do, this is what people enjoy.
Interaction/Protection: 0 to 5 points
How well does the deck interact and deal with other decks.
this is the practical enabler for the points elaborated on above
Format/Thematic: up to 2 points bonus
Here we can give bonus for the more crazy offshoots.
----------
This round was extremely linear. there were about 5 general approaches that I saw possible for this round. People will see synergy on their own and try to build around that. I literally pulled my submission from my group's existing bank of cockatrice decks, cut it down to 60 from the 64 it was originally and posted it. this was without looking at what others had posted. I look back and see that 4 or more like it have already been posted before me. Should I believe others were unoriginal because they couldn't post first?
We do everything according to the rubric, but I think it is naïve to believe a timestamp is the best and only measure originality or that the best deck concept is going to fill out the full top 8. There is no best deck as you seem to think. People make mistakes, oversights. I saw great ideas employed in this round and testing is bringing others to the surface, but none, none employed them all in the optimal combination. That is because people created their decks uniquely, on their own. Similar decks are in contention for the same spots in our top 8, but diversity is just one factor.
I know I rambled a bit there, but my brain is a tad fried from 2 midterms. Hopefully it is still intelligible and meaningful.
This was composed between 1 and 1:30, posts since then were not accounted for.
Just got to say, you've definitely earned distinction as an MTGS hero
Quote from Stardust »
Because he's the hero MTGS deserves, and the one it needs right now. So we'll global him. Because he can take it. Because he's not just our hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector. An expired rascal.
Quote from LuckNorris »
ExpiredRascals you sir are a god-like hero.
Quote from Lanxal »
ER is a masterful god who cannot be beaten in any endeavour.
Whoa didn't expect to have the world against me. I didn't want to make a scene of this but I guess it seems to late for that. I'll bang off a quick reply to each so I'm not being rude but I honestly don't want to get into an argument over this. After reading everyone's responses to me I feel it is probably best I don't continue to participate in this round unless people feel otherwise. I don't desire to have people just think of me as "ChefStiX the sour grape"
That's a good point. I haven't quite found a good counter yet, but wouldn't you find this a horribly boring top 8?
Terribly boring to be honest but true unbiased judging shouldn't take into consideration how much fun or boring it should be. Since fun isn't a category for judging and just a personal preference it really shouldn't be a consideration. I love control builds, many people don't find them fun. The same can be said for what some people think are fun for other decks. If I have less experience then maybe a deck based on worship would have been a blast to play in this round. If I had played a worship based deck 300 times I would find it pretty boring and not very fun. Another example (and I really hate naming names as I respect him a lot) could be Dlink's build this round. On the surface it is very similar to a Paradox Haze build with minor tweaks to make it work around NDE. If you have almost never played against a Paradox Haze deck it seems super fun and unique. If you are used to playing a Paradox Haze deck it quickly loses it's originality. Having said that I still think his builds are incredibly unique and I don't want to take away from that.
The only fix I could think of this was not to have the judges choose a top 8. They ultimately are the ones that would have to spend hours playtesting builds. They are the ones who would have to suffer playing the same foundation of a deck 3 times if 3 similar decks were voted it. As such perhaps everyone who submits a deck, judges included, could vote for a top 8. That wouldn't solve the problems of having the top 8 picked based more on the matrix but it would help with the issue of a judge discounting a build for it being to similar to another one they like, therefor making it boring for them
Granted, each of these 5 points may not get equal treatment in picking the top 8, but there is no doubt that each do influence the votes one way or another.
Thats really what I was trying to get at is that they don't seem to be getting equal treatment.
I guess Originality doesn't mean as much to you. IMO, if you're using Worship, you better have a very good reason for using it. If I was judging, I'd give that deck a 0 in originality, unless something else about it used Worship in a very creative way. The very fact that they used Worship means those decks "were just not as good". Granted, if they tweaked it well enough, they would get 4/5's in every other category. But if we compare it to the "unique and fun" deck who gets a top score in Originality and some other category, I believe the overall point total would be even. So in your example, there probably should be 4 Worship decks and 4 "unique, fun" decks making the top 8.
Only 3/18 submissions ran worship (mine was 1)
7/18 ran Academy Rector
6/18 ran Angel's Grace (mine was 1)
13/18 ran at least one of these cards (mine was 1)
I guess by that logic then all decks running Academy Rector and Angel's Grace also get a 0 for originality. Perhaps you should look at what else makes somebody's deck original.
You have a problem with my deck's originality yet out of 18 decks I am the only one who layered a lifegain aspect into it. Do I still get a 0 by your score?
Obviously we are following the matrix when we grade as that is how scores are determined...
Please don't put words in our mouth, nowhere did anybody say we choose first based on what is fun, only that it is a consideration, as it should be when you are playing a game. Magic is a game afterall, right? Let me quote myself here: "when I am picking my top decks I don't go through and rate everyone on the judging matrix. That's what playtesting is for. It is in the back of my mind, but I'm mostly looking at the overall feel of the deck. I don't look for any one particular thing, but more things along the lines of using cards that aren't commonly seen, or using common cards in uncommon ways, or unique & original ideas, or just a good overall mix of cards."
I think there is a problem in definitions here. If you meant the other 20 decks aren't as good, well, how do you mean? Not as powerful? Don't have the capacity to win? That's only one area of judging... If they are unique and fun that definitely counts for something. I don't think you can compare this contest to culinary competitions, or as someone previously did, olympic judging.
I didn't mean to put words into anybody's mouth and I'm sorry I misunderstood what you meant but that was the interpretation I got.
Unique should count for something. I'm just saying fun shouldn't. I have nothing against fun decks. If you look through my thread postings for my decks you will find I love playing fun/original decks over pure efficient killing machines. My first paragraph on response sums up what I'm trying to get at in terms of "fun".
I think you're wrong here. I say this first because I think you're counting myself as one of the judges that flouts the judging rubric based on a misread of an earlier post of mine. Your demeanor speaks more to a disappointment with your decks' performance in the past couple rounds than to a rational evaluation of the judging process. "Fun" is what we shoot for in Magic. It is a game, a past-time, a hobby. The rubric is crafted to judge the decks based on this. Alluding to the "fun" factor of the deck is not departing from the specific rubric, but rather a way to refer to them in the gestalt.
Here's the rubric, and how it relates to "fun":
"Creativity/Originality: 0 to 5 points
How creative and original is your deck."
People (especially johnnies like me) like to play something new, something that nobody else has seen before and that people have no idea what's coming. Furthermore, this gives us the ability to separate the unique ideas based on the rubric itself.
Effectiveness/Card adherence: 0 to 5 points
How well does it use the selected card?
This is the least-directly related to the grander concept of fun, but hey, i don't think card adherence was any of the axes that you were calling into question.
Synergy/Tuning: 0 to 5 points
How well do the cards combine in the deck; elegance and card selection.
Beauty in design is something many of us enjoy. Seeing them come together in play just makes it so much better.
Power/Capacity to win: 0 to 5 points
Can the deck deliver the goods?
People like to win. Winning/pulling off your combo/putting up a fight/showing what your deck can do, this is what people enjoy.
Interaction/Protection: 0 to 5 points
How well does the deck interact and deal with other decks.
this is the practical enabler for the points elaborated on above
Format/Thematic: up to 2 points bonus
Here we can give bonus for the more crazy offshoots.
----------
This round was extremely linear. there were about 5 general approaches that I saw possible for this round. People will see synergy on their own and try to build around that. I literally pulled my submission from my group's existing bank of cockatrice decks, cut it down to 60 from the 64 it was originally and posted it. this was without looking at what others had posted. I look back and see that 4 or more like it have already been posted before me. Should I believe others were unoriginal because they couldn't post first?
We do everything according to the rubric, but I think it is naïve to believe a timestamp is the best and only measure originality or that the best deck concept is going to fill out the full top 8. There is no best deck as you seem to think. People make mistakes, oversights. I saw great ideas employed in this round and testing is bringing others to the surface, but none, none employed them all in the optimal combination. That is because people created their decks uniquely, on their own. Similar decks are in contention for the same spots in our top 8, but diversity is just one factor.
I know I rambled a bit there, but my brain is a tad fried from 2 midterms. Hopefully it is still intelligible and meaningful.
This was composed between 1 and 1:30, posts since then were not accounted for.
First I'll say I agree that timestamp shouldn't matter. I retract my earlier comment about that.
Continuing, I purposefully didn't name names as I didn't want to cause a confrontation. You can feel my demeanor is only as a result of my results which in truth is probably partly true as I probably wouldn't have said anything if I was always in the top 8. Having said that I am a mature adult with judging experience IRL which is potentially more than the judges on here can say. I'm not trying to point any fingers and say "your doing it wrong". That is why I didn't name names. I'm just sharing my honest opinion and experience on how to properly judge something. Fun may be what we shoot for in magic but to stay true to the judging matrix fun shouldn't be a consideration.
My opinions on this again have been made clear and I know most people don't share my views on the influence of fun in builds. That's why I'm trying to drop it. As I have said 3 times so far since the top 8 has been posted. I seek guidance on how to improve. So far nobody has bothered taking the time to help me see where I could have improved my build. Plenty of time has been taken to flame me though. That's kinda why I don't want to continue to participate. I was hoping this contest would help me see other avenues I wouldn't normally consider when building around a card. If nobody is willing to help me see that the avenue I chose was a poor route to go down why bother? I have far to much going on in my life to be upset of a magic card contest online.
13/18 ran at least one of these cards (mine was 1)
I guess by that logic then all decks running Academy Rector and Angel's Grace also get a 0 for originality. Perhaps you should look at what else makes somebody's deck original.
Ok I'm sorry but I've tried to ignore this issue for the past couple of days. To be honest I'm surprised that you're bringing this up now. I think so far the least original round was the Power Artifact one. Also, while X amount of decks ran Academy Rector, that's only 1 to 4 cards of 60. While it's obvious that a deck may not score as highly in originality for using the same engine as another, there are infinite amounts of combinations with Academy Rector. A deck that plays Flash + Rector is going to be very different from a deck that runs Cabal Therapy and Rector, or Culling Dais + Rector.
That's the beauty of magic, sure 7/18 decks ran Academy Rector, but how many actually used the same sac outlet? I don't think you can get upset by similar card choices in decks. Sometimes the synergy between cards slaps you in the face (Power Artifact + Basalt Monolith or Academy Rector + any enchantment) but what makes the deck unique and original are the ~52 other cards in there.
That's the thing... for me at least, when I am picking my top decks I don't go through and rate everyone on the judging matrix. That's what playtesting is for. It is in the back of my mind, but I'm mostly looking at the overall feel of the deck. It's very possible, and this has happened to me already, that I pick a deck for the top 8 because it looks cool and fun, but after playtesting it I end up rating it pretty low for one reason or another. When picking, I don't look for any one particular thing, but more things along the lines of using cards that aren't commonly seen, or using common cards in uncommon ways, or unique & original ideas, or just a good overall mix of cards. Another big part of it is that if I'm going to be playing and testing these decks, I go for something that looks fun to me, that I will enjoy testing. The "to me" is a big part because a lot of this is really subjective, everyone has a different style (Johnny/Spike/Timmy/etc), and each judge will also have a different opinion. To be fair, I was one of the two that picked you chefstix, so I can't speak for the other judges as to why they didn't.
I was messing around with a build very similar to eclipseverity's, and was actually running 4x Dawn Charm because I felt targeted discard and burn could potentially be very bad for the deck. I think it's a pretty useful choice.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Also great against Mill. My build mainly tore apart my opponent's hand so it often wasn't needed, but there were a few burn match-ups where I desperately wanted a counter.
Multiplayer:
MonoBlack
Mono-Red
Cycling
Crush of Wurms
Zoo
Immortal Coil
Control
Reanimator
Mono-G
Cruel Ascension
Landfall
Esper Spirits/Tokens
Phantom Vigor
Not Explicitly Multiplayer:
Allies
Bant
Artifacts
The Mimeoplasm
Maga, Traitor to Mortals
Rhys the Redeemed
Merieke Ri Berit
Nekusar, the Mindrazer
Cromat Wurm Tribal
Gisela, Blade of Goldnight
Looking for Green friendly EDH players/groups in the Toronto area. PM me if this is you.
Comments like this are unnecessary. I dont know everyones specific circumstance, but dont let your sour grapes make you look like an idiot. Its one thing to say oh, I didnt make top 8 this week, maybe next week. But to attack people who beat you is rather low.
I participated sporadically in the past 3 seasons. There were rounds I didnt get into the top 8, sure at times i wanst happy about it, but I just kept submitting decks. This contest turns you into a better deck builder.
As for your deck
1 Vampiric Tutor
1 Demonic Tutor
4 Enlightened Tutor
DRAW
4 Ancestral Vision
CREATURES
4 Mischievous Poltergeist
COUNTERS
4 Mana Leak
4 Counterspell
4 Vindicate
SWEEP
4 Wrath of God
ENCHANTMENTS
2 Near-Death Experience
ARTIFACTS
3 Aether Vial
1 Sensei's Divining Top
LAND
4 Tundra
4 City of Brass
4 Polluted Delta
4 Flooded Strand
4 Gemstone Mine
4 Underground Sea
It looks very "flat". If you take out both Near-Death Experience and Mischievous Poltergeist. The deck no longer looks like a NDE deck. Nothing else supports the idea. If you add in some other two card combo it becomes a different deck. Now if you added more things that had synergy you would have instantly made a better deck.
For example, you could have added Sustaining Spirit or Children of Korlis. Something with more synergy then just counterspells, tutors, and removal.
4 Mischievous Poltergeist
4 Academy Rector
2 Sustaining Spirit
2 Children of Korlis
SPELLS:
1 Vampiric Tutor
1 Demonic Tutor
4 Avoid Fate
4 Vindicate
4 Wrath of God
1 Replenish
2 Cabal Therapy
3 Sterling Grove
2 Near-Death Experience
ARTIFACTS:
3 Aether Vial
1 Sol Ring
LAND:
4 City of Brass
4 Windswept Heath
4 Savannah
3 Forest
3 Plains
2 Scrubland
2 Bayou
I posted my deck Sunday night and it literally took me about 20 minutes to do it. I haven't touched it since. I see far to many people reedit their post over and over. Just get a deck together and post it and be done with it.
BUWGRChilds PlayGRWUB
BUWGR Highlander GRWUB
UBSquee's Shapeshifting PetBU
BW Multiplayer Control WB
RG Changeling GR
UR Mana FlareRU
UMerfolkU
B MBMC B
Yeah, it has good synergy too, because you can pay the 5 life to counter it. I was also going to try Deepwood Ghoul, solely based on it's survivability compared to Wall of Blood, but paying an even amount of life seemed like it would involve too much circumstance. Wall of Blood let me pay exactly what I needed, and most people didn't recognize it as a threat.
I admit I haven't gone through everyone's deck list, so maybe the answer is right in front of me, but I thought about Nihilistic Glee as well. Did anyone try that? It's Hellbent ability is mostly what I'm talking about, but maybe that would have taken the focus off Near-Death Experience.
Either way, very cool choice for this round. Can't wait for the next one.
Multiplayer:
MonoBlack
Mono-Red
Cycling
Crush of Wurms
Zoo
Immortal Coil
Control
Reanimator
Mono-G
Cruel Ascension
Landfall
Esper Spirits/Tokens
Phantom Vigor
Not Explicitly Multiplayer:
Allies
Bant
Artifacts
For that reason Mischievous Poltergeist was the better card. It did something similar to Deepwood Ghoul plus flying, and had the 1 life per activation like Wall of Blood.
BUWGRChilds PlayGRWUB
BUWGR Highlander GRWUB
UBSquee's Shapeshifting PetBU
BW Multiplayer Control WB
RG Changeling GR
UR Mana FlareRU
UMerfolkU
B MBMC B
Am I missing something here? Dash Hopes is a terrible card, in most situations and especially in the context of this week's card. Of course your opponents are going to take the 5-life loss, since a lot of this week's submissions don't focus on making the opponent lose life. It will never counter a spell. And if you're using it to lose 5-life for yourself, then there are much better cards to do that. Not to mention it is a conditional life-loss, since it requires a spell to be on the stack (yours or opponent's), and you have to do it on your own turn, otherwise your opponent can choose to lose 5-life first (active player chooses first).
Anyway, I'm shocked that there were only 3 Worship decks, although the abundance of Angel's Grace made up for that...
Another interesting point is that only 4 decks ran full playsets of Near-Death Experience, and nobody in the top 8 is running full playsets. I think that may be a CDCC first?
R: Copypasta Sauce {Browbeat}
UR: Mana Cache , One Spell to Bind them All {Magnetic Theft}
UG: Epic Struggle , All-In-Poison {Metamorphosis}
UW: Planar Overlay , Decree of the Bailiff {Saprazzan Bailiff}
BG: Thought Gorger , Dark Chroma {Umbra Stalker}
UBR: Dwarven Shrine
WUBRG: Dissipation Field , Maelstrom Nexus
I can't speak for the other judges, but i was intentionally much more lenient on similar ideas cropping up for this one because the strategy is so linear. So if 6 people came up with method x, I wouldn't shun them for being un-original, because this card has so much more room for independent discoveries than any other card this season. That being said, it did put them in greater competition with each other because they were so much more directly comparable. Don't hold back on your initial concept because someone else did something similar first. Just post your deck without looking at what others are doing and you'll be fine. First and foremost, we want to play fun decks that have a shot at winning, if a build can't deliver on either of those then the originality never comes into play.
Body Count: GRRRUUUUUUUUUUU
إن سرقت إسرق جمل
Level 1 Judge
My Cube for use with 6th ed. Rules
I can't agree 100% with this. This is my first CDCC season, but something I learned from rounds 0 & 1 is that playtesting is a big part of the deck building process. Some ideas seem really good on paper, but if judges are playtesting to score the decks, it's probably a good idea to fine tune them the same way. I built my Mosswort Bridge deck "post mortem" and there's a couple tweaks I could've done to it to score a little bit higher. For this round I had an Isochron Scepter for Silence/Counterspell on a stick... it didn't perform as expected and got the shaft.
However, the main concept of each deck is what can get you in the top 8, and that can be posted as soon as you see it in your mind (an are able to visit the forum, of course).
My Q0.02.
My YouTube Channel
I'm glad you have enough card knowledge to throw a great deck together in 20 minutes. Not all of us are so lucky. I took a good 13 year break from magic so there are many cards I don't know. I playtest my decks thoroughly so I know that they preform under many situations. I don't understand why editing the decks is bad? I playtested mine so much I ended up proxied it and now play it against the 40+ different decks in my meta. Sure it doesn't do so well against near legacy aggro goblins and merfolk but other than that it is very balanced. That is largely thanks to playtesting.
The Mimeoplasm
Maga, Traitor to Mortals
Rhys the Redeemed
Merieke Ri Berit
Nekusar, the Mindrazer
Cromat Wurm Tribal
Gisela, Blade of Goldnight
Looking for Green friendly EDH players/groups in the Toronto area. PM me if this is you.
I was just asking if anyone tested it. Someone played it against me when I was testing this deck and I (obviously) opted to lose 5 life. Just wondering if anyone played it from their side.
I take that as a direct affront to my deckbuilding skills.
Multiplayer:
MonoBlack
Mono-Red
Cycling
Crush of Wurms
Zoo
Immortal Coil
Control
Reanimator
Mono-G
Cruel Ascension
Landfall
Esper Spirits/Tokens
Phantom Vigor
Not Explicitly Multiplayer:
Allies
Bant
Artifacts
Being the first to post a specific idea is a relative small plus to me. My priority is to choose different concepts. The objective reason is that by testing different concepts, one's more likely to find something favourable. Subjectively, I want variety during testing. If there are too many different or multiple based on roughly the same idea, I choose, what I think to be, the most coherent list(s) among them. This would include synergy and convertibility.
And thats my point. This competition makes you a better deck builder. Just keep at it and you will get better.
Yes I play test mine too. But only about 5 or so games on MWS. If it works then I post it. If not, then I will mess with it alittle more till it does work. But this week long edit fest people seem to do isnt the way to go.
If anyone wants some insight into my deck choice here it is.
1x Plains
1x Swamp
4x City of Brass
2x Flooded Strand
1x High Market
4x Marsh Flats
2x Underground Sea
2x Tundra
4x Scrubland
4x Academy Rector
4x Mischievous Poltergeist
4x Wall of Denial
Artifacts:
2x Talisman of Dominance
2x Talisman of Progress
1x Sol Ring
Enchantments:
3x Near-Death Experience
1x Propaganda
1x Ghostly Prison
1x Greed
4x Angel's Grace
1x Skeletal Scrying
1x Mystical Tutor
4x Swords to Plowshares
1x Vampiric Tutor
1x Flash
1x Demonic Tutor
2x Night's Whisper
1x Wrath of God
1x Damnation
When I put this deck together, the first thing I did was search for something that I could use near infinitely to lose life. With that in mind I typed in "Pay 1 life:" and got this http://magiccards.info/query?q=o%3A%22Pay+1+life%3A%22&v=card&s=cname Out of those cards I picked Mischievous Poltergeist.
From there I knew I needed a way to play NDE quicker then turn 5. So Academy Rector came into mind. Also if I could just hard cast it faster, that would be great too. The artifact mana help with that. While I was going with artifact mana, I wanted something that fit me losing life, so i picked the Talisman's. Since I was in black, I added the two best black tutors Vampiric Tutor & Demonic Tutor.
Once I figured out what I need to almost kill myself with, and to find what I needed to do that. I need to protect myself from being killed. Thats where Angel's Grace comes in. Sure I could have used counters, but this card protects me way better then counters could, plus it puts me at the life total I want to be at (thats why I said it should be in every deck this round). But I needed some other protection. Wall of Denial is a big blocker, Swords to Plowshares is removal, and I could careless if my opponent gained life so it went into the deck. Wrath of God & Damnation are removal, but they also go well with Academy Rector. If my opponent doesnt want to kill my Rector, I can just Wrath/Damnation him away to search for an enchantment. Propaganda & Ghostly Prison went in because they were protection, but also because I could cheat them into play with Academy Rector.
Then I wanted some draw spells. I was thinking about using blue's draw spells to help me. But since I want to lose life, I went with the black draw spells.
Once I had all the cards I wanted, I put together my mana base. My mana base comes from my knowledge of competitive vintage. Decks in that format run Fetch + Dual packages with protection from wasteland via basic lands. In a casual format, you dont need to really worry about wasteland, but basics are cheaper then dual lands.
Flooded Strand gets me Scrubland, Tundra, Underground Sea and my Plains. Marsh Flats does all of that, plus gets me my Swamp which is why I have 4 instead of 2 like flooded. The City of Brass is linked only to NDE since it makes you lose life. High Market is only for Academy Rector.
Anyways, I dont know if this helps anyone. But I figured I would post my thought process in the hopes it might help someone else.
BUWGRChilds PlayGRWUB
BUWGR Highlander GRWUB
UBSquee's Shapeshifting PetBU
BW Multiplayer Control WB
RG Changeling GR
UR Mana FlareRU
UMerfolkU
B MBMC B
May I ask why you chose Wrath/Damnation over Day of Judgment? You can't sweep with Mischievous Poltergeist in play since it doesn't allow regeneration, and I would assume a progression like T2- Mana Generator, T3 Poltergeist, T4 Rector for T5 Sweep into Near-Death Experience was part of what you were going for.
R: Copypasta Sauce {Browbeat}
UR: Mana Cache , One Spell to Bind them All {Magnetic Theft}
UG: Epic Struggle , All-In-Poison {Metamorphosis}
UW: Planar Overlay , Decree of the Bailiff {Saprazzan Bailiff}
BG: Thought Gorger , Dark Chroma {Umbra Stalker}
UBR: Dwarven Shrine
WUBRG: Dissipation Field , Maelstrom Nexus
I didnt think about that. The use of the wrath effects was really as a last ditch effort, its main goal is to clear the opponents side of the table. I would much rather Flash Rector for NDE.
BUWGRChilds PlayGRWUB
BUWGR Highlander GRWUB
UBSquee's Shapeshifting PetBU
BW Multiplayer Control WB
RG Changeling GR
UR Mana FlareRU
UMerfolkU
B MBMC B
I ran one copy in Main and one in Board, but the deck was DEFINITELY based around that card... The point of one NDE was to limit me drawing one, I mean I could always play it but then it would result in a sorcery based win. :/
I got a vote for a terribad Sliver that I never tested in round 1, but this deck was tested, original and had a back-up plan...
EDIT: This post was specifically for this CDCC: NDE
Yeah Fortune Thief has the surprise factor over Ali of Cairo. Most people are able to think ahead far enough to Shock Ali before trying to kill you haha. It would have been cool to have seen a morph subtheme in Salty's deck. The only reason is because once you pull that morph trick on someone, Fortune Thief's survivability rate in the next round plummets.
Multiplayer:
MonoBlack
Mono-Red
Cycling
Crush of Wurms
Zoo
Immortal Coil
Control
Reanimator
Mono-G
Cruel Ascension
Landfall
Esper Spirits/Tokens
Phantom Vigor
Not Explicitly Multiplayer:
Allies
Bant
Artifacts
Cause it looked like fun (for a combo deck :p)...
I'm not trying to come across as sounding like I'm just complaining. I have judging experience IRL for culinary events and if we are given a matrix to judge upon we are expected to judge upon that matrix. That is the only reason I was/am slightly upset as I don't feel the judges are following the matrix when they grade. Two judges have admitted they choose first based on what is "fun", not what would score high based on the matrix. If there were 8 worship builds, for example, and 20 other completely unique and fun builds that were just not as good as those 8 worship builds then in all fairness the 8 worship builds should be voted in the top 8. If I judged like this IRL when I did the competitions I would never be allowed to judge again.
Anway, I've spoken my mind. I will drop this as past this I don't seen it being very constructive and don't desire any kind of confrontation.
Anway, Urweak my original purpose of my comments was to find out where I went wrong . I'm not trying to say anyone's decks sucked that made the top 8. I just am curious where I could have improved my build.
The only thing I can think of is maybe adding in Academy Rector for the instant speed play of NDE but avoided that as I was already running a pretty common theme in worship. More people used the Rector then the worship I believe so I just wanted to keep one of them.
The Mimeoplasm
Maga, Traitor to Mortals
Rhys the Redeemed
Merieke Ri Berit
Nekusar, the Mindrazer
Cromat Wurm Tribal
Gisela, Blade of Goldnight
Looking for Green friendly EDH players/groups in the Toronto area. PM me if this is you.
That's a good point. I haven't quite found a good counter yet, but wouldn't you find this a horribly boring top 8?
Unless one'd change the submission to be done via PM, people would simply ~copy the anticipated objectively best deck if diversity wasn't valued appropriately.
Assuming that's done, judges would need to be enforced to choose the 'best' decks - because they, obviously and as admitted, have a preference for not testing the same deck eight times - what means someone had to know ex ante what these are. That this would most likely be me, doesn't bother me as much, as demanding this knowledge, putting this much influence into the hands of one person and going his far for a contest that is supposed to be fun for all participants, incuding judges.
1. A fun deck is original - nobody really enjoys playing something they've played millions of times already.
2. A fun deck uses the card effectively - not doing so would mean you have created a bad deck with anti-synergy or an unrelated strategy that takes away from the fun this card creates.
3. A fun deck has elegance and good card selection - I don't find it fun to play a deck with random cards stuck in it, and with no tuning done so I can never get the deck to work as it should.
4. A fun deck can win - even Johnnies like me who would be satisfied with winning just 25% of the time don't like a deck that loses all the time. Nobody likes that.
5. A fun deck interacts with other decks - Interaction is pretty much half of what Magic is all about.
Granted, each of these 5 points may not get equal treatment in picking the top 8, but there is no doubt that each do influence the votes one way or another.
I guess Originality doesn't mean as much to you. IMO, if you're using Worship, you better have a very good reason for using it. If I was judging, I'd give that deck a 0 in originality, unless something else about it used Worship in a very creative way. The very fact that they used Worship means those decks "were just not as good". Granted, if they tweaked it well enough, they would get 4/5's in every other category. But if we compare it to the "unique and fun" deck who gets a top score in Originality and some other category, I believe the overall point total would be even. So in your example, there probably should be 4 Worship decks and 4 "unique, fun" decks making the top 8.
I didn't mean or say that running fewer than a certain number of copies of Near-Death Experience affected top 8 votes. I just said it was interesting, since CDCC picks usually are played in full playsets, and this seemed to be a pick that broke away from that trend.
IMO, the reason your deck didn't make Top 8 is because you have a strategy that is far stronger than winning by Near-Death Experience. Why would you want to risk winning at 1-life when you can win with say 15 life by attacking with Titans? Near-Death Experience is a card that makes you go out of your way to win. It takes time and effort to set up, and multiple cards have to be in place. On the contrary, you just play Primeval Titan, take advantage of its abilities and win by attacking. Which choice would most people make? I'd say the latter. I liked your deck and it had lots of potential, but Titan Ramp doesn't really belong here.
R: Copypasta Sauce {Browbeat}
UR: Mana Cache , One Spell to Bind them All {Magnetic Theft}
UG: Epic Struggle , All-In-Poison {Metamorphosis}
UW: Planar Overlay , Decree of the Bailiff {Saprazzan Bailiff}
BG: Thought Gorger , Dark Chroma {Umbra Stalker}
UBR: Dwarven Shrine
WUBRG: Dissipation Field , Maelstrom Nexus
Obviously we are following the matrix when we grade as that is how scores are determined...
Please don't put words in our mouth, nowhere did anybody say we choose first based on what is fun, only that it is a consideration, as it should be when you are playing a game. Magic is a game afterall, right? Let me quote myself here: "when I am picking my top decks I don't go through and rate everyone on the judging matrix. That's what playtesting is for. It is in the back of my mind, but I'm mostly looking at the overall feel of the deck. I don't look for any one particular thing, but more things along the lines of using cards that aren't commonly seen, or using common cards in uncommon ways, or unique & original ideas, or just a good overall mix of cards."
I think there is a problem in definitions here. If you meant the other 20 decks aren't as good, well, how do you mean? Not as powerful? Don't have the capacity to win? That's only one area of judging... If they are unique and fun that definitely counts for something. I don't think you can compare this contest to culinary competitions, or as someone previously did, olympic judging.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
I think you're wrong here. I say this first because I think you're counting myself as one of the judges that flouts the judging rubric based on a misread of an earlier post of mine. Your demeanor speaks more to a disappointment with your decks' performance in the past couple rounds than to a rational evaluation of the judging process. "Fun" is what we shoot for in Magic. It is a game, a past-time, a hobby. The rubric is crafted to judge the decks based on this. Alluding to the "fun" factor of the deck is not departing from the specific rubric, but rather a way to refer to them in the gestalt.
Here's the rubric, and how it relates to "fun":
"Creativity/Originality: 0 to 5 points
How creative and original is your deck."
People (especially johnnies like me) like to play something new, something that nobody else has seen before and that people have no idea what's coming. Furthermore, this gives us the ability to separate the unique ideas based on the rubric itself.
Effectiveness/Card adherence: 0 to 5 points
How well does it use the selected card?
This is the least-directly related to the grander concept of fun, but hey, i don't think card adherence was any of the axes that you were calling into question.
Synergy/Tuning: 0 to 5 points
How well do the cards combine in the deck; elegance and card selection.
Beauty in design is something many of us enjoy. Seeing them come together in play just makes it so much better.
Power/Capacity to win: 0 to 5 points
Can the deck deliver the goods?
People like to win. Winning/pulling off your combo/putting up a fight/showing what your deck can do, this is what people enjoy.
Interaction/Protection: 0 to 5 points
How well does the deck interact and deal with other decks.
this is the practical enabler for the points elaborated on above
Format/Thematic: up to 2 points bonus
Here we can give bonus for the more crazy offshoots.
----------
This round was extremely linear. there were about 5 general approaches that I saw possible for this round. People will see synergy on their own and try to build around that. I literally pulled my submission from my group's existing bank of cockatrice decks, cut it down to 60 from the 64 it was originally and posted it. this was without looking at what others had posted. I look back and see that 4 or more like it have already been posted before me. Should I believe others were unoriginal because they couldn't post first?
We do everything according to the rubric, but I think it is naïve to believe a timestamp is the best and only measure originality or that the best deck concept is going to fill out the full top 8. There is no best deck as you seem to think. People make mistakes, oversights. I saw great ideas employed in this round and testing is bringing others to the surface, but none, none employed them all in the optimal combination. That is because people created their decks uniquely, on their own. Similar decks are in contention for the same spots in our top 8, but diversity is just one factor.
I know I rambled a bit there, but my brain is a tad fried from 2 midterms. Hopefully it is still intelligible and meaningful.
This was composed between 1 and 1:30, posts since then were not accounted for.
Body Count: GRRRUUUUUUUUUUU
إن سرقت إسرق جمل
Level 1 Judge
My Cube for use with 6th ed. Rules
Terribly boring to be honest but true unbiased judging shouldn't take into consideration how much fun or boring it should be. Since fun isn't a category for judging and just a personal preference it really shouldn't be a consideration. I love control builds, many people don't find them fun. The same can be said for what some people think are fun for other decks. If I have less experience then maybe a deck based on worship would have been a blast to play in this round. If I had played a worship based deck 300 times I would find it pretty boring and not very fun. Another example (and I really hate naming names as I respect him a lot) could be Dlink's build this round. On the surface it is very similar to a Paradox Haze build with minor tweaks to make it work around NDE. If you have almost never played against a Paradox Haze deck it seems super fun and unique. If you are used to playing a Paradox Haze deck it quickly loses it's originality. Having said that I still think his builds are incredibly unique and I don't want to take away from that.
The only fix I could think of this was not to have the judges choose a top 8. They ultimately are the ones that would have to spend hours playtesting builds. They are the ones who would have to suffer playing the same foundation of a deck 3 times if 3 similar decks were voted it. As such perhaps everyone who submits a deck, judges included, could vote for a top 8. That wouldn't solve the problems of having the top 8 picked based more on the matrix but it would help with the issue of a judge discounting a build for it being to similar to another one they like, therefor making it boring for them
Thats really what I was trying to get at is that they don't seem to be getting equal treatment.
Only 3/18 submissions ran worship (mine was 1)
7/18 ran Academy Rector
6/18 ran Angel's Grace (mine was 1)
13/18 ran at least one of these cards (mine was 1)
I guess by that logic then all decks running Academy Rector and Angel's Grace also get a 0 for originality. Perhaps you should look at what else makes somebody's deck original.
You have a problem with my deck's originality yet out of 18 decks I am the only one who layered a lifegain aspect into it. Do I still get a 0 by your score?
I didn't mean to put words into anybody's mouth and I'm sorry I misunderstood what you meant but that was the interpretation I got.
Unique should count for something. I'm just saying fun shouldn't. I have nothing against fun decks. If you look through my thread postings for my decks you will find I love playing fun/original decks over pure efficient killing machines. My first paragraph on response sums up what I'm trying to get at in terms of "fun".
First I'll say I agree that timestamp shouldn't matter. I retract my earlier comment about that.
Continuing, I purposefully didn't name names as I didn't want to cause a confrontation. You can feel my demeanor is only as a result of my results which in truth is probably partly true as I probably wouldn't have said anything if I was always in the top 8. Having said that I am a mature adult with judging experience IRL which is potentially more than the judges on here can say. I'm not trying to point any fingers and say "your doing it wrong". That is why I didn't name names. I'm just sharing my honest opinion and experience on how to properly judge something. Fun may be what we shoot for in magic but to stay true to the judging matrix fun shouldn't be a consideration.
My opinions on this again have been made clear and I know most people don't share my views on the influence of fun in builds. That's why I'm trying to drop it. As I have said 3 times so far since the top 8 has been posted. I seek guidance on how to improve. So far nobody has bothered taking the time to help me see where I could have improved my build. Plenty of time has been taken to flame me though. That's kinda why I don't want to continue to participate. I was hoping this contest would help me see other avenues I wouldn't normally consider when building around a card. If nobody is willing to help me see that the avenue I chose was a poor route to go down why bother? I have far to much going on in my life to be upset of a magic card contest online.
The Mimeoplasm
Maga, Traitor to Mortals
Rhys the Redeemed
Merieke Ri Berit
Nekusar, the Mindrazer
Cromat Wurm Tribal
Gisela, Blade of Goldnight
Looking for Green friendly EDH players/groups in the Toronto area. PM me if this is you.
Ok I'm sorry but I've tried to ignore this issue for the past couple of days. To be honest I'm surprised that you're bringing this up now. I think so far the least original round was the Power Artifact one. Also, while X amount of decks ran Academy Rector, that's only 1 to 4 cards of 60. While it's obvious that a deck may not score as highly in originality for using the same engine as another, there are infinite amounts of combinations with Academy Rector. A deck that plays Flash + Rector is going to be very different from a deck that runs Cabal Therapy and Rector, or Culling Dais + Rector.
That's the beauty of magic, sure 7/18 decks ran Academy Rector, but how many actually used the same sac outlet? I don't think you can get upset by similar card choices in decks. Sometimes the synergy between cards slaps you in the face (Power Artifact + Basalt Monolith or Academy Rector + any enchantment) but what makes the deck unique and original are the ~52 other cards in there.
Multiplayer:
MonoBlack
Mono-Red
Cycling
Crush of Wurms
Zoo
Immortal Coil
Control
Reanimator
Mono-G
Cruel Ascension
Landfall
Esper Spirits/Tokens
Phantom Vigor
Not Explicitly Multiplayer:
Allies
Bant
Artifacts