Post by sdfkjgh on Mar 8, 2020 21:59:02 GMT
ZephyrPhantom: This is exactly the sort of design I had in mind, and was hoping for, when I came up with the challenge. Thank you for setting such a high bar right out of the gate. You prove that a 1-mana planeswalker is still possible, you just have to be highly conscious of permissible effects at 1 mana.
kefke: When I first saw that you'd gone the safe, conservative, staid route of cmc 3, I was a quite a bit disappointed. However, you very quickly redeemed yourself with that innovative static ability, your choice of loyalty abilities and their subsequent costs, and, not least, your explanation of your thought processes. The rest of you should take note: sometimes, the addition of a brief on your thought processes can bump you up in the ratings by at least a position or two.
fabuloussunbro: Despite your whinging about the challenge, and your timid choice of mana cost, you still managed to turn in a thoroughly innovative design. However, the numbers are all wrong. As a 1-mana planeswalker, I'd probably still recommend, at the very least, an increase in starting loyalty to . But, because you went "safe", a player would have to wait until their turn 7, at the earliest, before they can give something +3/+3 ueot, and keep that boost's source around to aid another day. A better design for cmc3 would've been , . I do really like the idea of adding colors as the game goes on.
Daij_Djan: Are you trying to play matchmaker for B.O.B. (Bevy of Beebles)? Because
as Rule 34 as that would be I'm all for it! And as my Editor, I feel it's slightly unfair of you to use your knowledge of my weakness for redheads to you advantage. Notice to the rest of you: THIS is how you play it safe! You increase cost by 1, NOT 2! Outside of mana burn, I don't think we've ever seen an ability triggering off of losing unspent mana, and I'm almost certain we've NEVER seen an ability that's all upside doing this. Your entry is also an excellent, but sneaky, way to teach about the different steps and phases of a turn.
Xenozfan2: Even though you played it excessively safe in your design, you also did it correctly, using your excess of caution to your advantage by turning in a properly planeswalker. This design feels like one of the fairer 'walkers, like Teyo, the Shieldmage (Te-e-e-yo, teylight come and me wan go ho-ome!), Jiang Yanggu, Wildcrafter, Kasmina, Enigmatic Mentor, Kiora, Behemoth Beckoner, or Huatli, the Sun's Heart. A good, solid design.
Tesagk: As much as I like everything else about your design, I hate the feelbads that it will undoubtedly and inevitably cause, as I'm fairly certain that you can't cast this on an empty board, and the number of times less experienced players will have their dreams obliterated by this obscure facet of the rules will be far to high, even if that number is only 1. An easy fix would be to give it and have it enter with an additional loyalty counter on it for each other planeswalker you control. Other than that, I'm very glad you swung for the fences on this one, as that feels incredibly pushed. I only just now noticed that that ability is a minus ability, not a plus. This is a very interesting design choice, going the route of the 'walkers, but using effects that don't feel out of place for . In that light, it's a bit of a shame that the feels so underwhelming. Better that you omitted the land tapping, and keep the power level between the abilities consistent.
HvT: The reason I didn't include Amy Lee is I honestly didn't even think of her. I should've expanded the parameters out to the generic "Pick a 1-mana mana dork. Now design a planeswalker version of that card." or something similar. Thank you for showing me the error of my ways, and for turning in a submission that does so, so thoroughly. Sveta feels like such a natural midpoint between Amy and Craig, it's almost like the Magic equivalent of Sean Lennon. If she hasn't blocked you already, I highly recommend tweeting your entry to Erin Campbell.
@omnividrus: Your entry feels more like an than a . Had you been bolder with your rarity, even just by the barest fraction of , you would've gotten higher marks, as the rest if your design is quite stellar.
1st Place: 4-way tie
ZephyrPhantom, for providing exactly what I was hoping for, as the very first response.
Daij_Djan, for showing how to properly be timid in costing, and for innovative design.
Xenozfan2, for showing how to properly go fully conservative in design.
& HvT, for properly chastising my lack of one-drop mana dork inclusiveness, and their perfect execution thereof.
VERY Close 5th Place (remember, in statistics, if there's a tie, the next available ordinal used is the absolute numerical; this is why it's not 2nd Place):
kefke, for the stunning recovery from their disappointing costing with design that fully justified it, and for their excellent detailing of their thought process.
Congratulations to everyone. This was amazingly enjoying to judge. I apologise if the rating feels like a cop-out, all four of you deserved the win, each for such vastly different reasons, that it would've felt like a cop-out, to me at least, had I just picked one over any of the others. I hope you all can agree on who gets to pick the next Challenge without resorting to any melodramatically cheap theatrics, but don't let me stop any of you if things unfortunately turn out that way.