It has been brought to my attention that the originality section of the rubric may need to be cleared up a bit to have standards to how it is graded. I've had a few people make complaints that it basically forces them to use bad decks, just to not lose points in originality. That and testers (myself included) all seem to grade it differently. As such, I feel that these are the best options moving forward, and I'd like you guys to help decide which we go with.
1)How uncommon the deck is: This seems to be the basis a lot of testers go with. With good reason, it means that decks that overpopulate the metagame and are all over the place get less points than decks that are original, and clearly took quite a lot of thought to have it work. However the downside is that depending on the harshness of the tester, the testee can lose points for a deck that they and/or another tester may think is creative, but the tester who tested may see a lot, and as such give it a lower score.
2)How unique the deck itself is: This is another viable method that can be used for testing. It rewards techs that are used that other decks of the same type don't use, and punishes using a cut and paste version of every other deck like it. However this comes at the cost that if someone uses a very common deck, but with their own techs, they would be treated as really creative. Also, if someone doesn't draw into their techs/unique choices, they would lose points for it. And finally, it encourages adding bad cards to the deck, just to get extra points
Or, we could go with a mix of the 2 (Which I personally use to test), or keep it up to the tester's discretion (As it is now)
Home 
Latest images 
