"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.
QFT...
It stands to reason that every ratings category (besides card adherence) is there to try and assertain how "fun" a deck is to play;
- A fun deck tries to be original; (deckbuilding should "feel" personal)
- A fun deck is elegant and clever (I might even enjoy losing to it now and again)
- A fun deck is a deck that can hold it's own (and even win from time to time)
- A fun deck can deal with stuff (fishbowl tests do not a fun deck make)
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.
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.
Sorry if you felt I singled your deck out but I named no names on purpose. I didn't even single out Academy Rector beyond any others. I was just using it as an example to dlink of the frequency of other cards used in here to show that using worship shouldn't be any less original.
I completely agree about the bold/underlined section. That was the point I was trying to make in regards for using worship. Having one card that is there for insurance that has perfect card adherence and synergy with NDE shouldn't be a penalty.
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 don't understand why Originality is being evaluated solely in the context of this contest. IMO, originality should be evaluated in terms of how original it is compared to the rest of the Magic world, as in every deck that's ever been created and every combo that's already been posted. If originality is being defined by what 20 people post in a contest, then uniqueness loses all meaning. Yes, it is my personal belief that any deck running Worship and Angel's Grace should get a 0 in originality, unless they had some other very unique strategy that required Worship/Grace. Academy Rector is another story as it is a very open-ended card, and is only an enabler for Near-Death Experience, but nothing synergizes so obviously with Near-Death Experience as Worship/Grace. And I believe people should be penalized for using such an obvious interaction, since it's going to get them more points elsewhere. I bet if this contest was more popular and there were more submissions, there would be a flood of Worship/Grace N.D.E. based decks. Last I checked, originality meant a new deck idea, not something everybody else could create.
I take originality extremely seriously. As for this contest, I relaxed my limits a little since some card picks have to be used to win, but I believe my deck concepts have been thought of by very few people in this world. In fact, I'm not particularly proud of what I posted this week since I'm sure other too many people could come up with a deck like mine very easily - and I wouldnt give myself a 5 in originality for the very same fact. Similar to the "including Worship/Grace" argument, just because I included Paradox Haze doesn't make my deck unoriginal. I chose to use it in a very unorthodox way, but the reason people included Worship/Grace this round was to use it with Near-Death Experience, a very orthodox, unoriginal manner. I'm not saying that my own rules are what we should all be judged by, but there should be some sense of respect for those who build truly original deck ideas. You say it like it is easy to come up with a "unique and fun" deck idea - it's not.
As to improving your deck, you included some odd choices for a N.D.E based deck... I don't understand why you went with those creatures, especially since they're not exactly the most resiliant to removal. Why not something like Darksteel Myr, or something with protection like Stillmoon Cavalier and Mirran Crusader? Your early strategy can easily evolve into creature attack with Jitte support, backed in mid-game by a 10/10 Phyrexian Processor engine token that comes out every turn. Furthermore, it's easy to pay more life to get a bigger token because you're more likely to gain life early in the game rather than later. So why would someone piloting this deck want to opt for a Near-Death Experience strategy when they can win with big life totals? It's just much less risky. Would you honestly use Enlightened Tutor to fetch something besides Jitte? It's too good of a card and wins games just being on 1 creature. But Is the deck bad? Certainly not. It's a very fine B/W deck, but it's not a good Near-Death Experience deck. But the sideboard plan is just silly. Nobody sideboards out all their land for non-basic hate - instead they run general answers to non-basic hate. White has lots of answers - you could have run counterspells (Rebuff the Wicked), anti-land destruction spells (Sacred Ground, Crucible of Worlds), you could have run Privileged Position for general shroud protection, and a lot more. But you chose something that weakened your deck after sideboard - Basics.
Sorry if you felt I singled your deck out but I named no names on purpose. I didn't even single out Academy Rector beyond any others. I was just using it as an example to dlink of the frequency of other cards used in here to show that using worship shouldn't be any less original.
I completely agree about the bold/underlined section. That was the point I was trying to make in regards for using worship. Having one card that is there for insurance that has perfect card adherence and synergy with NDE shouldn't be a penalty.
No not at all, I didn't even run Rector. While I agree with you that it shouldn't be a penalty for using the same engine, obviously the judges don't want to test the same shell of a deck over and over. I know I wouldn't. I don't mind this because, well frankly, it is a game.
I'm somewhat pleased that you managed to not turn this into an outright flamefest. Still, it's way to personal for my taste.
Quote from Bustin »
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?
As ChefStiX didn't address this himself, I think I should:
Assume each deck has an inherent objective score (according to the matrix), even before judges assign it their subjective one (that should approx. equal the inherent one). -> There will be eight decks that have higher scores than the rest. -> These should be the Top 8.
-> This means any deck that didn't make the Top 8, should have a score lower than the lowest given by judges. -> We certainly agree that this is not the case, not even taking into account the originality problem brought up. -> Our process of chosing the Top 8 isn't optimal.
Quote from ChefStiX »
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.
[...]
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
As others have pointed out, there is a high correlation between 'fun' and the criteria of the matrix. In fact, it was designed to break down fun into somewhat objective bits. Thus the valuation of a deck's 'fun' should be an appropriate approximation of the expected matrix score.
Bias can't be eliminated at a reasonable cost, the contest has to be kept functional. Judges that are outside of the contest are preferable over an open vote here, 'cuz the latter has the tendency to turn into a popularity contest. If this results in discriminating similar decks, it is an acceptable externality, given it promotes thinking outside of the box and results in a wider range of solidly founded feedback.
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.
Truely unfortunate. Giving feed-back to the decks not making it to the Top 8 is another sub-par element of the contest, but please consider that judges already sink plenty of time into the Top 8. Further, it is hard to give advice on how to build decks in a way that their chance of getting into the Top 8 improves - catering to one judge can do the opposite to an other (Salty & me?).
-> Is anyone volunteering to give feedback to the decks that didn't make the top 8, on a regular basis? This of course won't reflect, the judges' reasoning, but is atleast some input.
-> Any objections to change the next round's submissions to be done via PM (to me) and then be posted (by me) anonymously? I'd like to test that to see wether there's a significant difference in people who make the Top 8 (null hyopthesis if mine is 'no').
Somewhat unrelated to the above:
Having one card that is there for insurance that has perfect card adherence and synergy with NDE shouldn't be a penalty.
Not quite. One reason why adherence to the round's card, synergy and creativity are seperate criteria, are such cases. Being good at one doesn't mean the other two are matched in the same way.
And you shouldn't think of it as a penalty.
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.
Mmmhh, don't know why you guys are staking so much on originality, it's only 1/5 of the scoring.
Trying to go the originality route for a deck is a question of choice, how confidant you are in surfing stranger waters. Tried and tested cards and known interactions and combos may not be original, but we see them often because they are always good and powerful choices for a deck.
Let's not forget that we're in the casual section and IMHO, power almost always strikes a balance with originality. If I choose not to go with obvious choices, my power curve is bound to suffer; that's a personal choice you need to make, Johnny's will probably favor originalty; Spikes, power. A balance is preferable as raw power allmost always garners hate in the meta of a casual playgroup, while johnny-"gasm" decks will just tend to lose 9 games out of 10.
----
Of course card combinations in decks, that are both powerful and original should be rewarded by this contest, that's what judges should look for anyway, but don't even think that these appear in every round though...
Let's not also forget that the most influential factor for originality in any given round, is the round's card itself. Some cards are more open-ended and favor a wide variety of deck designs, some cards are narrower and force a particular strategy or limited sets of strategies.
You don't have to be a genius to figure out that Near-Death Experience falls in the "narrow" card category.
Of course decks in this round will be similar, and you shouldn't give everyone a zero on originality because the same 2 or 3 cards were used, the narrowness of this round's card forces these choices.
This relates to another point I want to make: There's plenty of other card choices I see in the decks that can be used to differentiate and allow a judge to still rate originality. Zero is extreme and should not be used lightly by any judge. In a skating competition for example, even if a skater falls multiple times he/she still won't get a zero; exam-time, zero means only that you didn't show up.
If you come to the contest, take the time to think about ideas and post a deck, then get a zero, it's a slap in the face and an insult.
So everybody should take a chill pill about originality, contestants shouldn't feel as though they have to re-invent the wheel every time they post a deck, and judges should keep in mind the flexibility of the round's card and modulate scoring accordingly.
Definition of casual: Without definite or serious intention; careless or offhand; unconcerned; informal; nonchanlant.
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.
-> Is anyone volunteering to give feedback to the decks that didn't make the top 8, on a regular basis? This of course won't reflect, the judges' reasoning, but is atleast some input.
-> Any objections to change the next round's submissions to be done via PM (to me) and then be posted (by me) anonymously? I'd like to test that to see wether there's a significant difference in people who make the Top 8 (null hyopthesis if mine is 'no').
.
First: I don't see any reason why we can't all comment on each other's decks after the top 8 have been chosen. That's why we leave the thread open for discussion afterwards no? I don't think we have to nominate one single person to take on the admittedly large task of deck doctoring the non top 8 submissions. Why not just treat it as any other post in the Casual section of these forums.
Sure we can do it by PM, I have no problem with this.
I'm somewhat pleased that you managed to not turn this into an outright flamefest. Still, it's way to personal for my taste.
As ChefStiX didn't address this himself, I think I should:
Assume each deck has an inherent objective score (according to the matrix), even before judges assign it their subjective one (that should approx. equal the inherent one). -> There will be eight decks that have higher scores than the rest. -> These should be the Top 8.
-> This means any deck that didn't make the Top 8, should have a score lower than the lowest given by judges. -> We certainly agree that this is not the case, not even taking into account the originality problem brought up. -> Our process of chosing the Top 8 isn't optimal.
As others have pointed out, there is a high correlation between 'fun' and the criteria of the matrix. In fact, it was designed to break down fun into somewhat objective bits. Thus the valuation of a deck's 'fun' should be an appropriate approximation of the expected matrix score.
Bias can't be eliminated at a reasonable cost, the contest has to be kept functional. Judges that are outside of the contest are preferable over an open vote here, 'cuz the latter has the tendency to turn into a popularity contest. If this results in discriminating similar decks, it is an acceptable externality, given it promotes thinking outside of the box and results in a wider range of solidly founded feedback.
Truely unfortunate. Giving feed-back to the decks not making it to the Top 8 is another sub-par element of the contest, but please consider that judges already sink plenty of time into the Top 8. Further, it is hard to give advice on how to build decks in a way that their chance of getting into the Top 8 improves - catering to one judge can do the opposite to an other (Salty & me?).
-> Is anyone volunteering to give feedback to the decks that didn't make the top 8, on a regular basis? This of course won't reflect, the judges' reasoning, but is atleast some input.
-> Any objections to change the next round's submissions to be done via PM (to me) and then be posted (by me) anonymously? I'd like to test that to see wether there's a significant difference in people who make the Top 8 (null hyopthesis if mine is 'no').
Somewhat unrelated to the above:
Not quite. One reason why adherence to the round's card, synergy and creativity are seperate criteria, are such cases. Being good at one doesn't mean the other two are matched in the same way.
And you shouldn't think of it as a penalty.
I hope you don't mind me making a suggestion even though I am not involved with this competition. Pretty much every deck that gets posted on the Casual Forums gets suggestions. So if you don't make the top 8 and you want help with your deck, why don't you just post it in the Casual forums?
It's not ment as an 'either or' proposal and it'd not be a nomination.
Ok. I guess if someone is willing to volunteer for the position then all the power to them. But yeah, like Rabid and I suggested, why not just treat it as a normal Casual Deck thread? Post all the non-top 8s in a separate thread and let everyone comment on them.
Well giving tips seems odd since it is a contest, but I'll offer my opinions on some of the decks that didn't make top 8, if anyone really wants to know why.
CorwinofAmber:
It's not like the deck is bad, but it just feels like you took a normal Enchantress deck and stuck in 2 cards (Near-Death Experience and Yawgmoth's Bargain) to make it adhere to this week's card. I'm speaking on pure speculation since I haven't done any testing, but this is another deck that feels like the Alternate strategy (Opalescence) is the more viable win-condition than Near-Death Experience. Everybody likes winning by attacking and it just feels safer than getting to 1-life with Yawgmoth's Bargain. I don't know if Worship is a safe card to depend on for protection since it requires 1 of 9 creature/creature-enablers (Wall/Enchantress/Opalescence). You may have been better off with Solitary Confinement considering all of that draw.
CasualAspect -
this is a deck that I'm surprised didn't get any votes at all, because it basically looks like what everybody else is using anyway. There are lots of similarities between this decklist and some others'. Spellbook should probably be Reliquary Tower, and 8 sources of white mana in a deck that requires WWW for N.D.E. is very questionable. You may have Weathered Wayfarer, but that's a conditional card. The N.D.E. strategy is also not very solid - you have to get N.D.E. down on the field first, then play Necrologia on your own turn, leaving you extremely, extremely vulnerable. You're also tapping out every turn for this, and you don't have any permanents to hold back creatures or protect you in general. Your deck needed something like Solitary Confinement or something that created a safer environment to combo-off safely, and it didn't.
KingT-
Urweak already addressed this, but I'll add that the Aether Vial strategy feels too gimmicky. Why didn't you put in more creatures that could assist with your strategy? Vialing in Sustaining Spirit would have been really cool, Trinket Mages wouldn't have hurt, Imperial Recruiter now seems like a good addition, and Academy Rector is another prime candidate for Vial shenanigans.
Hamsta:
I'm sure it fairs well in testing, and the cascade method is certainly interesting. But is Cascade really that much better than just using a regular tutor to get the combo pieces? What advantage does Cascade offer over a simple Demonic Tutor? Well one advantage is that it essentially allows you to run 11 copies of the crucial Plunge into Darkness. I think the problem was that you can't play Plunge into Darkness without having Academy Rector in play already, which makes those 11 copies of P.L.i.D into dead cards in the early game. Lack of a backup protection plan probably hurt you a lot as well - but that's what happens when you dediate an entire deck to a combo. If there's anything to improve this deck, I suppose it would be Death Wish. Your life total when you're using Plunge into Darkness doesn't seem to matter since you only need it to reach 1-life, and by using Death Wish, you could have included a lot of 1CMC/2CMC cards (i.e. Angel's Grace) that could have assisted in your strategy.
Kiljo -
I really liked this deck, because it used a different method to approach a normal Near-Death Experience win. Mine used Paradox Haze, and this deck used Second Chance to get that crucial 2nd N.D.E upkeep trigger. I believe that was one of the more important things to address in this week's contest - how to manipulate your life total to 1 and win before your opponent has a proper chance to respond. I'm also surprised that you're the only one who used Blood Celebrant, since this is an unstoppable method of getting to 1-life. Other creature's activated abilities can be stopped, but you can't respond to this at all, and I think many people overlooked this. The fact that you can get Triple White for N.D.E while running many non-black cards is extremely good here. So where does it fall short? Again, probably protection. I think you included too many ways to lose life (The Skirge-En-Kor interaction is a cool way to lose life, but it's not worth 10 slots!) These slots definitely needed to be more protection for the combo. I do love the En-Kor redirect to kill Rector though. The major weakness, as you noticed, was probably the fact that you can lose to a random Tethered Skirge trigger from your opponent, and the fact that you have no backup protection to protect you from such a loss.
I've already addressed Chefstix and Necroticah's - both were fine decks, but I believe they had alternate win strategies that took away too much from N.D.E. It's really up to the deck's pilot to win however he sees fit, but I think most people like winning by the simplest method when they are unfamiliar with a deck, and that's usually by direct attack.
This post is getting way too long. Can someone else comment on the rest of the decks? Is something like my post actually what people wanted to hear for decks that didn't make the Top-8? If not I'll delete it...
Well giving tips seems odd since it is a contest, but I'll offer my opinions on some of the decks that didn't make top 8, if anyone really wants to know why.
CorwinofAmber: It's not like the deck is bad, but it just feels like you took a normal Enchantress deck and stuck in 2 cards (Near-Death Experience and Yawgmoth's Bargain) to make it adhere to this week's card. I'm speaking on pure speculation since I haven't done any testing, but this is another deck that feels like the Alternate strategy (Opalescence) is the more viable win-condition than Near-Death Experience. Everybody likes winning by attacking and it just feels safer than getting to 1-life with Yawgmoth's Bargain. I don't know if Worship is a safe card to depend on for protection since it requires 1 of 9 creature/creature-enablers (Wall/Enchantress/Opalescence). You may have been better off with Solitary Confinement considering all of that draw.CasualAspect -
this is a deck that I'm surprised didn't get any votes at all, because it basically looks like what everybody else is using anyway. There are lots of similarities between this decklist and some others'. Spellbook should probably be Reliquary Tower, and 8 sources of white mana in a deck that requires WWW for N.D.E. is very questionable. You may have Weathered Wayfarer, but that's a conditional card. The N.D.E. strategy is also not very solid - you have to get N.D.E. down on the field first, then play Necrologia on your own turn, leaving you extremely, extremely vulnerable. You're also tapping out every turn for this, and you don't have any permanents to hold back creatures or protect you in general. Your deck needed something like Solitary Confinement or something that created a safer environment to combo-off safely, and it didn't.
KingT-
Urweak already addressed this, but I'll add that the Aether Vial strategy feels too gimmicky. Why didn't you put in more creatures that could assist with your strategy? Vialing in Sustaining Spirit would have been really cool, Trinket Mages wouldn't have hurt, Imperial Recruiter now seems like a good addition, and Academy Rector is another prime candidate for Vial shenanigans.
Hamsta:
I'm sure it fairs well in testing, and the cascade method is certainly interesting. But is Cascade really that much better than just using a regular tutor to get the combo pieces? What advantage does Cascade offer over a simple Demonic Tutor? Well one advantage is that it essentially allows you to run 11 copies of the crucial Plunge into Darkness. I think the problem was that you can't play Plunge into Darkness without having Academy Rector in play already, which makes those 11 copies of P.L.i.D into dead cards in the early game. Lack of a backup protection plan probably hurt you a lot as well - but that's what happens when you dediate an entire deck to a combo. If there's anything to improve this deck, I suppose it would be Death Wish. Your life total when you're using Plunge into Darkness doesn't seem to matter since you only need it to reach 1-life, and by using Death Wish, you could have included a lot of 1CMC/2CMC cards (i.e. Angel's Grace) that could have assisted in your strategy.
Kiljo -
I really liked this deck, because it used a different method to approach a normal Near-Death Experience win. Mine used Paradox Haze, and this deck used Second Chance to get that crucial 2nd N.D.E upkeep trigger. I believe that was one of the more important things to address in this week's contest - how to manipulate your life total to 1 and win before your opponent has a proper chance to respond. I'm also surprised that you're the only one who used Blood Celebrant, since this is an unstoppable method of getting to 1-life. Other creature's activated abilities can be stopped, but you can't respond to this at all, and I think many people overlooked this. The fact that you can get Triple White for N.D.E while running many non-black cards is extremely good here. So where does it fall short? Again, probably protection. I think you included too many ways to lose life (The Skirge-En-Kor interaction is a cool way to lose life, but it's not worth 10 slots!) These slots definitely needed to be more protection for the combo. I do love the En-Kor redirect to kill Rector though. The major weakness, as you noticed, was probably the fact that you can lose to a random Tethered Skirge trigger from your opponent, and the fact that you have no backup protection to protect you from such a loss.
I've already addressed Chefstix and Necroticah's - both were fine decks, but I believe they had alternate win strategies that took away too much from N.D.E. It's really up to the deck's pilot to win however he sees fit, but I think most people like winning by the simplest method when they are unfamiliar with a deck, and that's usually by direct attack.
This post is getting way too long. Can someone else comment on the rest of the decks? Is something like my post actually what people wanted to hear for decks that didn't make the Top-8? If not I'll delete it...
It's casual. Banned lists do not apply. Some may disapprove of seeing too many vintage-restricted cards in one place, but strictly speaking, no cards are banned.
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.
Actually Dlink you didn't address mine. Talked about Necro's deck and how his Titan's are the more powerful aspect of his deck. Thanks for the advice though.
In playtesting I have only won once out of like 15 wins by anything but NDE to be honest.
In terms of my protection what are people's thoughts on hiding behind False Prophet + Worship?
Would including Academy Rector made any difference? My biggest complaint in testing was that it took forever to get my NDE out.
Not sure if my advice on other builds is wanted as I can't seem to build a good enough one myself to satisfy what the judge's are looking at but I will try it out as well. As there are so many builds that didn't make it if you want my opinion on your build just let me know.
Not sure if my advice on other builds is wanted as I can't seem to build a good enough one myself to satisfy what the judge's are looking at but I will try it out as well.
C'mon, if you say you're 'a mature adult' , then act like one and cut these comments.
Your thoghts are as welcome as anybody else's.
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.
Thanks for the advice DLink! I was kinda sad my deck didn't make it because although it was not original, no one else used the cards... Hopefully I can make a better deck next time, good luck to all who made the top 8.
It's casual. Banned lists do not apply. Some may disapprove of seeing too many vintage-restricted cards in one place, but strictly speaking, no cards are banned.
Right sorry, read the restricted list as the banned list - my bad.
I can if you are in a bind but I won't be able to start to judge decks until Monday&Tues. How much time approx. are the judges having to spend testing? I realistically only have a few hours a week I could spend.
Also, in light of the recent discusssion if you feel it is best if I don't partake in judging I won't take it personally.
For this round we'll just go with the remaining three judges. So you would not have to judge the current decks.
Testing ideally is done between Tuesday morning and Sunday evening (GMT+1). 'Ideally' , 'cuz if the Top 8 votes are late, well, one can't start to test. It's quite time consuming, but fun.
edit: judges are also excluded from the final ranking. what in your case ChefStiX would be a plus, because until now your no contender anyways.
That's no 'yes', yet. maybe there are other volunteers. *dryformalcough*
I warn other potential judges, it is a lot of fun to see all these deck concepts in action, but it is a LOT of work. Make sure you have the time. I spend close to four hours organizing my notes and preparing my final scorings for each round. That is after all the testing. Just know what you're getting into.
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.
It's all good. Like I said, if you're in a bind I'm down to help out. Not sure if I'm the best alternative but I'm willing. I do really enjoy this contest and it's regretful how things went down. I'm a bit worried about how the participants feel about me being a judge as well.
Effectiveness/Card adherence: 4.5
Straight to the face combo deck, the epitome of adhering to the round's card.
Synergy/Tuning: 3
Gifts is underperforming hard - maybe I'm just too used to it being bonkers, but here it isn't. As there is no recurrsion engine built into the deck. Polymorph doesn't suck when you get the second Rector, but it's disappointing. Decks like this need more fine tuning than what you did.
Props for the land base tho.
Power/Capacity to win: 3
It didn't perform that well tbh.
Interaction/Protection: 2
The white spells offer some protection, but not for the combo.
Effectiveness/Card adherence: 4.5
As expected, yes.
Synergy/Tuning: 3
Four Sanctum is about one too much. Apart from the manlands, this deck looks like it built itself. I would've cut a bit spot removal for targetd discard.
Power/Capacity to win: 4
As sad as it is, this performed better than the others.
Interaction/Protection: 4
Rings, Journeys, Wraths and Grace make sure the game is in your favour.
Format/Thematic: -0.5
Four Necro is greedy.
PeterRiviera: 18.5
Creativity/Originality: 3.5
I like Wall of Blood (that I expected) & Reclamation.
Effectiveness/Card adherence: 3.5
The deck has a distinct NDE feeling, but could have gone further.
Synergy/Tuning: 3.5
Wraith with Reclamation isn't as good as you make it sound - 6 life is a lot for two cards.
Toolboxes are good in my book. The distribution of slots is good, if a bit heavy on spot removal.
Power/Capacity to win: 4
Reasonable Casual deck.
Interaction/Protection: 4
Yup. As I said, good amount of most things. I miss a wrath effect.
Format/Thematic: 0
none.
fdtori: 21
Creativity/Originality: 4.5
Effing Pain's Reward. How awesome is that? Tribal also scores points.
Effectiveness/Card adherence: 3.5
It's not quite as obvious as with other decks that it's about NDE, but a Cleric deck not about NDE would look very different. Allthough of very defensive nature, the deck's not as dependant on the enchantment to win as it may seem, Pestilence and heavy creature recurring do also a good job at winning games - what gives minus points (here)
Synergy/Tuning: 4
The deck's a real gem. Playing with it one finds little interactions, not apparent at first glance. Slight minuses for having difficulties comming back (barring Bidding), but that's expectable from a tribal list.
Power/Capacity to win: 4
Reasonable.
Interaction/Protection: 4
Hand control? Recurrsion helps a lot tho.
Format/Thematic: 1
Cleric tribal. I have to mention somewhere that I like that you chose this tribe. NDE has a transcendetal touch to it and well, clerics fit.
Not outstandingly awesome, but very solid.
eclipseverity: 17.5
Creativity/Originality: 3.5
Another expected main combo card, Plunge. That the rest of the deck is basically Fogs and card draw that costs life, has its appeal but that in turn has its limits.
Effectiveness/Card adherence: 4.5
Lots of very dedicated decks this round, this is one of 'em.
Synergy/Tuning: 3
Ahem... 17 fog effects. There's potential for diversification.
Power/Capacity to win: 3.5
Reasonable the Nth.
Interaction/Protection: 2.5
"Declare no blockers. Fog. Done?" Rebuff the Wicked is a fancy Duress, I prefer proactive answers over _such awkward_ counters.
Format/Thematic: 0
none.
Wingedkagouti: 14
Creativity/Originality: 2
Champion feels like a sub-par Wall of Blood, Corwin introduced Replenish and DLink used Shield before your edit. Original is different. Plus points for staying monowhite.
Effectiveness/Card adherence: 4.5
The deck stands and falls with NDE.
Synergy/Tuning: 2.5
It's a bit all over the place, the accel for example didn't fit the pace the rest of the deck set. Too many Tutors for to few targets, until the SB is used.
Power/Capacity to win: 3
Medicore .
Interaction/Protection: 2
A minimal 4 slots of removal, but an additional four to get NDE back. Problem - once NDE was nuked and you're at 1 - you have other problems.
Format/Thematic: 0
none.
urweak : 17.5
Creativity/Originality: 3.5
Poltergeist was expected. the single Flash doesn't pull it out imo.
Effectiveness/Card adherence: 4
Yes.
Synergy/Tuning: 3.5
Nothing outstanding, but I like that Greed was chosen over more powerfull options.
Power/Capacity to win: 3.5
Many decks performed similar this round, this one's no different.
Interaction/Protection: 3
Again nothing truely outstanding, WoR however was a nice twist to other decks.
QFT...
It stands to reason that every ratings category (besides card adherence) is there to try and assertain how "fun" a deck is to play;
- A fun deck tries to be original; (deckbuilding should "feel" personal)
- A fun deck is elegant and clever (I might even enjoy losing to it now and again)
- A fun deck is a deck that can hold it's own (and even win from time to time)
- A fun deck can deal with stuff (fishbowl tests do not a fun deck make)
Sorry if you felt I singled your deck out but I named no names on purpose. I didn't even single out Academy Rector beyond any others. I was just using it as an example to dlink of the frequency of other cards used in here to show that using worship shouldn't be any less original.
I completely agree about the bold/underlined section. That was the point I was trying to make in regards for using worship. Having one card that is there for insurance that has perfect card adherence and synergy with NDE shouldn't be a penalty.
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 don't understand why Originality is being evaluated solely in the context of this contest. IMO, originality should be evaluated in terms of how original it is compared to the rest of the Magic world, as in every deck that's ever been created and every combo that's already been posted. If originality is being defined by what 20 people post in a contest, then uniqueness loses all meaning. Yes, it is my personal belief that any deck running Worship and Angel's Grace should get a 0 in originality, unless they had some other very unique strategy that required Worship/Grace. Academy Rector is another story as it is a very open-ended card, and is only an enabler for Near-Death Experience, but nothing synergizes so obviously with Near-Death Experience as Worship/Grace. And I believe people should be penalized for using such an obvious interaction, since it's going to get them more points elsewhere. I bet if this contest was more popular and there were more submissions, there would be a flood of Worship/Grace N.D.E. based decks. Last I checked, originality meant a new deck idea, not something everybody else could create.
I take originality extremely seriously. As for this contest, I relaxed my limits a little since some card picks have to be used to win, but I believe my deck concepts have been thought of by very few people in this world. In fact, I'm not particularly proud of what I posted this week since I'm sure other too many people could come up with a deck like mine very easily - and I wouldnt give myself a 5 in originality for the very same fact. Similar to the "including Worship/Grace" argument, just because I included Paradox Haze doesn't make my deck unoriginal. I chose to use it in a very unorthodox way, but the reason people included Worship/Grace this round was to use it with Near-Death Experience, a very orthodox, unoriginal manner. I'm not saying that my own rules are what we should all be judged by, but there should be some sense of respect for those who build truly original deck ideas. You say it like it is easy to come up with a "unique and fun" deck idea - it's not.
As to improving your deck, you included some odd choices for a N.D.E based deck... I don't understand why you went with those creatures, especially since they're not exactly the most resiliant to removal. Why not something like Darksteel Myr, or something with protection like Stillmoon Cavalier and Mirran Crusader? Your early strategy can easily evolve into creature attack with Jitte support, backed in mid-game by a 10/10 Phyrexian Processor engine token that comes out every turn. Furthermore, it's easy to pay more life to get a bigger token because you're more likely to gain life early in the game rather than later. So why would someone piloting this deck want to opt for a Near-Death Experience strategy when they can win with big life totals? It's just much less risky. Would you honestly use Enlightened Tutor to fetch something besides Jitte? It's too good of a card and wins games just being on 1 creature. But Is the deck bad? Certainly not. It's a very fine B/W deck, but it's not a good Near-Death Experience deck. But the sideboard plan is just silly. Nobody sideboards out all their land for non-basic hate - instead they run general answers to non-basic hate. White has lots of answers - you could have run counterspells (Rebuff the Wicked), anti-land destruction spells (Sacred Ground, Crucible of Worlds), you could have run Privileged Position for general shroud protection, and a lot more. But you chose something that weakened your deck after sideboard - Basics.
And lastly, how does layering in lifegain make a deck original? That is by no means a unique idea, and it's simply another method to manipulate your life total to assist Near-Death Experience. Many people didn't use it because they had Angel's Grace available. Also, you're not the only one who had "instant speed life manipulators". How many people added Plunge into Darkness before you did? I'll list similar stuff others used: Vampire Nighthawk, Sun Droplet, Zuran Orb, Voracious Hatchling, Putrid Warrior, Soulgorger Orgg, Primal Command, Starlit Sanctum, and the ubiquitous Swords to Plowshares. Not to mention the countless Damage preventors like Solitary Confinement, fdtori's Clerics which is pretty much solely based on your claim to originality, Delaying Shield, and like 4 different Fog effects like Angelsong and Darkness. All of these are similar to yours, so yeah, I'd have to say "lifegain" is not original, by any stretch of the imagination.
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
No not at all, I didn't even run Rector. While I agree with you that it shouldn't be a penalty for using the same engine, obviously the judges don't want to test the same shell of a deck over and over. I know I wouldn't. I don't mind this because, well frankly, it is a game.
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
As ChefStiX didn't address this himself, I think I should:
Assume each deck has an inherent objective score (according to the matrix), even before judges assign it their subjective one (that should approx. equal the inherent one). -> There will be eight decks that have higher scores than the rest. -> These should be the Top 8.
-> This means any deck that didn't make the Top 8, should have a score lower than the lowest given by judges. -> We certainly agree that this is not the case, not even taking into account the originality problem brought up. -> Our process of chosing the Top 8 isn't optimal.
As others have pointed out, there is a high correlation between 'fun' and the criteria of the matrix. In fact, it was designed to break down fun into somewhat objective bits. Thus the valuation of a deck's 'fun' should be an appropriate approximation of the expected matrix score.
Bias can't be eliminated at a reasonable cost, the contest has to be kept functional. Judges that are outside of the contest are preferable over an open vote here, 'cuz the latter has the tendency to turn into a popularity contest. If this results in discriminating similar decks, it is an acceptable externality, given it promotes thinking outside of the box and results in a wider range of solidly founded feedback.
Truely unfortunate. Giving feed-back to the decks not making it to the Top 8 is another sub-par element of the contest, but please consider that judges already sink plenty of time into the Top 8. Further, it is hard to give advice on how to build decks in a way that their chance of getting into the Top 8 improves - catering to one judge can do the opposite to an other (Salty & me?).
-> Is anyone volunteering to give feedback to the decks that didn't make the top 8, on a regular basis? This of course won't reflect, the judges' reasoning, but is atleast some input.
-> Any objections to change the next round's submissions to be done via PM (to me) and then be posted (by me) anonymously? I'd like to test that to see wether there's a significant difference in people who make the Top 8 (null hyopthesis if mine is 'no').
Somewhat unrelated to the above:
Not quite. One reason why adherence to the round's card, synergy and creativity are seperate criteria, are such cases. Being good at one doesn't mean the other two are matched in the same way.
And you shouldn't think of it as a penalty.
Trying to go the originality route for a deck is a question of choice, how confidant you are in surfing stranger waters. Tried and tested cards and known interactions and combos may not be original, but we see them often because they are always good and powerful choices for a deck.
Let's not forget that we're in the casual section and IMHO, power almost always strikes a balance with originality. If I choose not to go with obvious choices, my power curve is bound to suffer; that's a personal choice you need to make, Johnny's will probably favor originalty; Spikes, power. A balance is preferable as raw power allmost always garners hate in the meta of a casual playgroup, while johnny-"gasm" decks will just tend to lose 9 games out of 10.
----
Of course card combinations in decks, that are both powerful and original should be rewarded by this contest, that's what judges should look for anyway, but don't even think that these appear in every round though...
Let's not also forget that the most influential factor for originality in any given round, is the round's card itself. Some cards are more open-ended and favor a wide variety of deck designs, some cards are narrower and force a particular strategy or limited sets of strategies.
You don't have to be a genius to figure out that Near-Death Experience falls in the "narrow" card category.
Of course decks in this round will be similar, and you shouldn't give everyone a zero on originality because the same 2 or 3 cards were used, the narrowness of this round's card forces these choices.
This relates to another point I want to make: There's plenty of other card choices I see in the decks that can be used to differentiate and allow a judge to still rate originality. Zero is extreme and should not be used lightly by any judge. In a skating competition for example, even if a skater falls multiple times he/she still won't get a zero; exam-time, zero means only that you didn't show up.
If you come to the contest, take the time to think about ideas and post a deck, then get a zero, it's a slap in the face and an insult.
So everybody should take a chill pill about originality, contestants shouldn't feel as though they have to re-invent the wheel every time they post a deck, and judges should keep in mind the flexibility of the round's card and modulate scoring accordingly.
Definition of casual: Without definite or serious intention; careless or offhand; unconcerned; informal; nonchanlant.
You guys are all so serious, eh?
First: I don't see any reason why we can't all comment on each other's decks after the top 8 have been chosen. That's why we leave the thread open for discussion afterwards no? I don't think we have to nominate one single person to take on the admittedly large task of deck doctoring the non top 8 submissions. Why not just treat it as any other post in the Casual section of these forums.
Sure we can do it by PM, I have no problem with this.
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
I hope you don't mind me making a suggestion even though I am not involved with this competition. Pretty much every deck that gets posted on the Casual Forums gets suggestions. So if you don't make the top 8 and you want help with your deck, why don't you just post it in the Casual forums?
Ok. I guess if someone is willing to volunteer for the position then all the power to them. But yeah, like Rabid and I suggested, why not just treat it as a normal Casual Deck thread? Post all the non-top 8s in a separate thread and let everyone comment on them.
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
CorwinofAmber:
This post is getting way too long. Can someone else comment on the rest of the decks? Is something like my post actually what people wanted to hear for decks that didn't make the Top-8? If not I'll delete it...
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
Isn't Yawgmoth's Bargain banned?
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
It's casual. Banned lists do not apply. Some may disapprove of seeing too many vintage-restricted cards in one place, but strictly speaking, no cards are banned.
Body Count: GRRRUUUUUUUUUUU
إن سرقت إسرق جمل
Level 1 Judge
My Cube for use with 6th ed. Rules
In playtesting I have only won once out of like 15 wins by anything but NDE to be honest.
In terms of my protection what are people's thoughts on hiding behind False Prophet + Worship?
Would including Academy Rector made any difference? My biggest complaint in testing was that it took forever to get my NDE out.
Not sure if my advice on other builds is wanted as I can't seem to build a good enough one myself to satisfy what the judge's are looking at but I will try it out as well. As there are so many builds that didn't make it if you want my opinion on your build just let me know.
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.
C'mon, if you say you're 'a mature adult' , then act like one and cut these comments.
Your thoghts are as welcome as anybody else's.
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.
Cards for sale: Check them out!
Right sorry, read the restricted list as the banned list - my bad.
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
Anyone wanting to step in for him?
Also, in light of the recent discusssion if you feel it is best if I don't partake in judging I won't take it personally.
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.
For this round we'll just go with the remaining three judges. So you would not have to judge the current decks.
Testing ideally is done between Tuesday morning and Sunday evening (GMT+1). 'Ideally' , 'cuz if the Top 8 votes are late, well, one can't start to test. It's quite time consuming, but fun.
edit: judges are also excluded from the final ranking. what in your case ChefStiX would be a plus, because until now your no contender anyways.
That's no 'yes', yet. maybe there are other volunteers. *dryformalcough*
Body Count: GRRRUUUUUUUUUUU
إن سرقت إسرق جمل
Level 1 Judge
My Cube for use with 6th ed. Rules
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.
My YouTube Channel
Dlink123: 19
Delaying Shield is awesome in combination with Bloodclock, what in itself is quite evil.
Effectiveness/Card adherence: 4.5
The deck stands and falls with NDE, but needs too many components. Leyline, Shield, Haze and NDE.
Synergy/Tuning: 4
The bounce tricks it can pull off are nice but partially backfired against stuff with etb effects.
Power/Capacity to win: 3.5
It's a bit below the other decks that get the note 'reasonable'.
Interaction/Protection: 2.5
Bounce is just a temporary solution, and for once I wanted to be able to block.
Format/Thematic: 0
none.
Gaea's Regent: 17.5
Polymorph, Soulgorger Orgg - meet NDE.
Effectiveness/Card adherence: 4.5
Straight to the face combo deck, the epitome of adhering to the round's card.
Synergy/Tuning: 3
Gifts is underperforming hard - maybe I'm just too used to it being bonkers, but here it isn't. As there is no recurrsion engine built into the deck. Polymorph doesn't suck when you get the second Rector, but it's disappointing. Decks like this need more fine tuning than what you did.
Props for the land base tho.
Power/Capacity to win: 3
It didn't perform that well tbh.
Interaction/Protection: 2
The white spells offer some protection, but not for the combo.
Format/Thematic: 0
none.
expiredrascals: 18
Prebuilt gallore. Worship? Check. Necro? Check. Plunge? Check. Grace? Check.
Effectiveness/Card adherence: 4.5
As expected, yes.
Synergy/Tuning: 3
Four Sanctum is about one too much. Apart from the manlands, this deck looks like it built itself. I would've cut a bit spot removal for targetd discard.
Power/Capacity to win: 4
As sad as it is, this performed better than the others.
Interaction/Protection: 4
Rings, Journeys, Wraths and Grace make sure the game is in your favour.
Format/Thematic: -0.5
Four Necro is greedy.
PeterRiviera: 18.5
I like Wall of Blood (that I expected) & Reclamation.
Effectiveness/Card adherence: 3.5
The deck has a distinct NDE feeling, but could have gone further.
Synergy/Tuning: 3.5
Wraith with Reclamation isn't as good as you make it sound - 6 life is a lot for two cards.
Toolboxes are good in my book. The distribution of slots is good, if a bit heavy on spot removal.
Power/Capacity to win: 4
Reasonable Casual deck.
Interaction/Protection: 4
Yup. As I said, good amount of most things. I miss a wrath effect.
Format/Thematic: 0
none.
fdtori: 21
Effing Pain's Reward. How awesome is that? Tribal also scores points.
Effectiveness/Card adherence: 3.5
It's not quite as obvious as with other decks that it's about NDE, but a Cleric deck not about NDE would look very different. Allthough of very defensive nature, the deck's not as dependant on the enchantment to win as it may seem, Pestilence and heavy creature recurring do also a good job at winning games - what gives minus points (here)
Synergy/Tuning: 4
The deck's a real gem. Playing with it one finds little interactions, not apparent at first glance. Slight minuses for having difficulties comming back (barring Bidding), but that's expectable from a tribal list.
Power/Capacity to win: 4
Reasonable.
Interaction/Protection: 4
Hand control? Recurrsion helps a lot tho.
Format/Thematic: 1
Cleric tribal. I have to mention somewhere that I like that you chose this tribe. NDE has a transcendetal touch to it and well, clerics fit.
Not outstandingly awesome, but very solid.
eclipseverity: 17.5
Another expected main combo card, Plunge. That the rest of the deck is basically Fogs and card draw that costs life, has its appeal but that in turn has its limits.
Effectiveness/Card adherence: 4.5
Lots of very dedicated decks this round, this is one of 'em.
Synergy/Tuning: 3
Ahem... 17 fog effects. There's potential for diversification.
Power/Capacity to win: 3.5
Reasonable the Nth.
Interaction/Protection: 2.5
"Declare no blockers. Fog. Done?" Rebuff the Wicked is a fancy Duress, I prefer proactive answers over _such awkward_ counters.
Format/Thematic: 0
none.
Wingedkagouti: 14
Champion feels like a sub-par Wall of Blood, Corwin introduced Replenish and DLink used Shield before your edit. Original is different. Plus points for staying monowhite.
Effectiveness/Card adherence: 4.5
The deck stands and falls with NDE.
Synergy/Tuning: 2.5
It's a bit all over the place, the accel for example didn't fit the pace the rest of the deck set. Too many Tutors for to few targets, until the SB is used.
Power/Capacity to win: 3
Medicore .
Interaction/Protection: 2
A minimal 4 slots of removal, but an additional four to get NDE back. Problem - once NDE was nuked and you're at 1 - you have other problems.
Format/Thematic: 0
none.
urweak : 17.5
Poltergeist was expected. the single Flash doesn't pull it out imo.
Effectiveness/Card adherence: 4
Yes.
Synergy/Tuning: 3.5
Nothing outstanding, but I like that Greed was chosen over more powerfull options.
Power/Capacity to win: 3.5
Many decks performed similar this round, this one's no different.
Interaction/Protection: 3
Again nothing truely outstanding, WoR however was a nice twist to other decks.
Format/Thematic: 0
none.
Minion of Wastes, Vendetta, Final Strike/Rite of Consumption in conjunction with Wall of Blood as secondary win con would have been possible.