The MCC Discussion Thread

[Gateways7]

And the clarifications you wrote say that unless the card's typeline is "Enchantment - Saga", it doesn't count towards "having" the Saga mechanic.

In fact. What's true is that I have made a mistake, not including that clarification I mentioned above about devotion. I haven't thought of it. I'm sorry.

But, to be very technical, no cards "have" devotion -- per the rules (glossary), devotion is defined as "A numerical value a player has, equal to the number of mana symbols of a certain color among the mana costs of permanents that player controls." If we're very interested in investigating the letter of the challenge, not a single devotion card this entire month has satisfied the main challenge.

the lack of clarification given

In fact I've already said that has been a mistake on my part. I should have included that I wanted the card itsef to perform the devotion check in the clarification. I didn't because I didn't think of it. I apologize, I'm only human, I can't foresee things.

I don't see why the line ought to be drawn firmly over tokens.

I'll give you the real answer even if I know it might not be satisfactory: because I didn't think about a player trying to put the (one) required mechanic on a token. I just didn't think of it while creating the challenge.

These all seem like reasons to reverse the DQ rather than defend it. Why should slimy be punished for a judge's admitted mistake?

[bravelion83]

I see your point, but I also don't want to create a bad precedent, where the Main Challenge is "adjustable" by the players.
Also, even if I allow mechanics on tokens, slimytrout's card still has two while the Main Challenge asks explicitly for just one. At least this is an objective point, and would have already caused the DQ by itself. So, while I understand everybody's best intentions, I will have the DQ stand.

Now I really have to go to bed. I'll check tomorrow evening if more answers are needed.

[slimytrout]

I appreciate everyone having taken time to think through this (both those who agree with me and those who don't) -- I don't want too much more time to be spent discussing it, since, although I am disappointed to be disqualified from the final round, it is ultimately bravelion's decision and he seems to have made it with some finality. I did want to make one quick note, not about what it means for a card to actually "have" devotion, since plenty of virtual ink has already been spilled on that front, but rather on this point:

I don't see how. The letter looks clear to me:: the card has to have the mechanic, not the token. The spirit is making a card with the mechanic, not a token with the mechanic.

I think we disagree about what "spirit of the challenge" means -- to my mind, it is possible for the letter to be concerned with minute distinctions, like whether a card has devotion or whether a token does. On the other hand, the "spirit of the challenge" should not be -- if an entry (like the X/X Ooze-maker I invented above) fully satisfies the spirit of the challenge, then a nearly identical entry (like the */* Ooze-maker) shouldn't fully violate it. To my mind, this is important because, as has been stated by others, it is impossible for contestants to know exactly how the host intends the challenge to work, so some latitude on these matters is helpful to allow for boundaries to be pushed. You of course wrote the rubric, as you did the challenge, so on some level I have little standing to make these claims, but I thought I'd explain where I am coming from.

[bravelion83]

a nearly identical entry

But functionally different, don't forget that.

he seems to have made it with some finality

Yes, but don't take it for granted. I haven't reached a final decision yet. Yes, I'm more leaning on one side than the other, but it doesn't mean I can't change my mind. I might. Note I have temporarily removed the judging deadline, and this is exactly the reason: I need more time to think about this.

EDIT: After further consultation with the other judges, the DQ stands. Now my decision is final. I'm sorry, and you know, @slimytrout , that I'm not happy having to DQ a card. We've worked together before on a month with 3 DQ's, and you know how much I always ponder this kind of things. You are one of the last people I would ever want to DQ, and you know it. I like you, I like your designs but most of you I really like you as a person, and again we've had the chance to know each other. This month it's gone this way, I really wish you to win a month soon. You deserve it for the wonderful person that you are. I hope that these words, totally real, not of circumstance, can make the final verdict less sour. Please, please slimytrout, keep being that wonderful person that I've had the chance to know. I still want to work with you on another month, this has changed nothing between us. Again, I'm really sorry, and you know I'm completely sincere. I hope to see you again next month.

EDIT: Subject16 is the MCC winner for January. Congratulations to him! Scores in the round thread.

[marioguy3]

I am officially withdrawing my card in round 1 in February for missing rarity. It's clearly my bugaboo when it comes to magic design, but rules are rules. This also signifies that I know that my card would have been disqualified anyway.

[Sojourner Dusk]

As my card has been scored and judged, I'd like to offer some rebuttal in the form of enlightenment.

Development
Viability 1.5/3 - No problems with the creature side. I do have problems with the planeswalker side. Some black should definitely be there in the costs somewhere. Maybe this should have been Grixis-colored and thus not Dack. Or a dark Dack (pun intended, one of the tricks you learn when writing a 1200 pages long story). The triggered ability is black. The tutoring part in the -2 is black. Rarity is obviously right.

The triggered ability has actually never appeared in Black. Cards in that color have a trigger that reads "Whenever an opponent discards...". My trigger hasn't appeared on a card since Judgment, but "Whenever a player discards..." has only seen print on three cards: two White, one Blue, Obviously, I'm leaning towards Telekinetic Bonds here. It's odd to think this design space hasn't been used nearly two decades.

The tutor is Reach Through Mists stapled to the front of Gamble, Again, no Black involved.

Creativity
Flavor 1.5/3 - If this is a Grixis-colored character it can't be Dack, and if this is Dack it can't be a Grixis-colored character, as this needs to be mechanically. Maybe some necromancer has resurrected him? Anyway, I do like how good of a representation of his powers the mechanics of the creature side are. As for the planeswalker side, I don't understand the tie between Dack and the moon, which anyway would require him to come from Innistrad or some other plane where the moon is relevant.

A "moonlighter" is a synonym for "thief", as Dack had a change in profession after his spark ignited.

I'm not looking to revise my score. Just informing my fellow competitors and judges where my design was influenced from.

[Kypster]

Just one quick little explanation. Wont change my score much or to any relevant degree but I thought I'd point out it's intended function.

Elegance 1.5/3 - Very wordy, as most cards this round. Dredge seems put there without reason unless I'm missing some interactions other than filling up your graveyard.

Dredge is the engine to trigger Kraj's "Whenever Kraj, Rot Scavenger leaves your graveyard, you may exile target creature card from a graveyard. If you do, put a cytoplasm counter on it." Unless I'm missing some interaction that keeps it from working?

Also thank you for the detailed Quality feedback. Definitely made some rookie mistakes in there that I'll keep in mind for the future.

[bravelion83]

leaves your graveyard

Of course! Dredge lets the card go from your graveyard to your hand, so it does leaves the graveyard and that ability triggers. That's the interaction I was missing. Thank you for clarifying. And no, as you've said yourself, this doesn't change anything.

And yes, please, as I've said, mind Quality. I'm very happy you're willing to learn about that! I wish everybody did.

[Ink-Treader]

Subchallenges 1/2 - No + ability, but there is a generic mana symbol in the card's mana cost that invalidates Subchallenge 1.

Subchallenge 1 reads as though it specifies that the colored mana symbols must be hybrid, but doesn't disallow generic mana costs.

[void_nothing]

Subchallenges 1/2 - No + ability, but there is a generic mana symbol in the card's mana cost that invalidates Subchallenge 1.

Subchallenge 1 reads as though it specifies that the colored mana symbols must be hybrid, but doesn't disallow generic mana costs.

Absolutely. The word "colored" is right there.

[bravelion83]

I'm double checking with the host to be sure that it's a misreading on my part. You have no idea how hard this period is for me, it's already much that I'm judging this month, but I wanted to do it for a bunch of reasons. Note that it's the only thing I'm doing here this month. March will also be hard (that's when I might take a pause from judging and still be around in the forum but not involved in any way, we'll see). April should be when things start getting a little easier and my activity here should go back up. That goes to say that all my personal projects have suffered from this, because I have less free time than before and I'm using it to rest. In such a mess, I might very well have misread a subchallenge. I'll get back from you as soon as I have any updates.

This also signifies that I know that my card would have been disqualified anyway.

Missing rarity is NOT a cause of DQ. It's just the cause of big point losses in several areas of the rubric, and the resulting score probably wouldn't have made you advance anyway, but it's not technically a DQ.

[Ryder]

Indeed, the challenge states:

the only colored mana symbols in the card's cost are hybrid

Colorless Generic mana is not colored mana

[bravelion83]

Colorless mana is not colored mana

Generic mana is not colored mana. That's what you actually meant!

Ok, this has been a misread on my part. I've just corrected the scores accordingly, even though it's irrilevant for the contest as it doesn't change who advances.

[Ryder]

@marioguy3 In this particular case, not including the rarity is not a DQ, you simply failed to provide information which is a Quality mistake. DQ could only be issued in you did include the rarity and it was something different than required by the Main Challenge. In your card, the rarity is unknown, but it should be assumed to be Mythic because of the Challenge. Please reconsider your withdrawal, you may still have some chances!

[bravelion83]

which is a Quality mistake

Viability is also heavily impacted by missing rarity, as it's where you judge the rarity of a card. Other areas could be impacted too but less.

Please reconsider your withdrawal, you may still have some chances!

I add my voice to this. Yes, @marioguy3 , your chances aren't the best but they aren't zero, and you're not DQ'ed.

[marioguy3]

Ah. If it's not too late, then I would reconsider the WD. The reason I thought I was automatically disqualified was that the challenge called for a mythic rare, and due to no rarity, it cannot be proven that the card is a mythic rare.

[slimytrout]

Well, I guess I'm kind of forced into more Insect tribal.

Just a friendly caution, since you're newer to the MCC, that it's not advisable to include extra text to your entry; if the judges think you're trying to influence their opinion of your design, then they will likely disqualify you. Much safer to put things like that here in the discussion thread, where you can say whatever you want (within the bounds of decency and politeness).

[Sojourner Dusk]

@slimytrout , @rtk1357 : It's actually an auto DQ. Happened to me a few months back, and my additional text had nothing to do with the card I submitted.

From Section 7 (Disqualifications) of the MCC FAQ (link in bravelion83's sig):

• A player posting anything in addition to the required text card and the optional render. This includes design notes and everything else you can think of. A submission post must include only the text card and the optional render. In this case, no appeal can be made.

[bravelion83]

Ah. If it's not too late, then I would reconsider the WD. The reason I thought I was automatically disqualified was that the challenge called for a mythic rare, and due to no rarity, it cannot be proven that the card is a mythic rare.

It also can't be proven it's not a mythic rare! As I had told you, not a DQ but a low score that still prevents you from advancing. But you haven't given up, and that's what's important!

Well, I guess I'm kind of forced into more Insect tribal.

Just a friendly caution, since you're newer to the MCC, that it's not advisable to include extra text to your entry; if the judges think you're trying to influence their opinion of your design, then they will likely disqualify you. Much safer to put things like that here in the discussion thread, where you can say whatever you want (within the bounds of decency and politeness).

slimytrout , rtk1357 : It's actually an auto DQ. Happened to me a few months back, and my additional text had nothing to do with the card I submitted.

From Section 7 (Disqualifications) of the MCC FAQ (link in bravelion83's sig):

• A player posting anything in addition to the required text card and the optional render. This includes design notes and everything else you can think of. A submission post must include only the text card and the optional render. In this case, no appeal can be made.

Sojourner Dusk is right. (Easy to say when you've written the guidelines, but still...) Any, and I repeat: ANY additional content, regardless of whether is relevant or not to the submission and/or the challenges, is a cause of DQ. Even if it's just "Hi everybody, this is my card." Just don't write anything in your submission post in addition to the text card and the optional render. I appreciate slimytrout trying to say it with a more friendly tone, but this is actually a rather rigid rule, and it's always been on Salvation too. The rigidity of this rule is one of the several things that differentiate the MCC from the other main contests here and that is part of its high formality, that's a feature, not a bug.

[Kypster]

So in last weeks challenge part of my feedback was that my Legendary creature/walker probably should have fit into Sultai colors based on its functionality.

For this weeks challenge, I'm trying to determine if I should be designing my card based on the functionality of my card last week with Sultai colors, or try to make a card that may not fit the functionality theme as well but fits better into the Golgari color scheme.

Is this just an 'up to me' kind of thing? Or is there a precedent for on theme challenge months for adapting future designs based on feedback from previous weeks?

Tl;dr: Will I lose points in Main Challenge and/or Flavor (or otherwise) for adding blue to my second round card when my first round card was Golgari but should have been Sultai?

[Ryder]

Will I lose points in Main Challenge and/or Flavor (or otherwise) for adding blue to my second round card when my first round card was Golgari but should have been Sultai?

Not at all! The challenge says nothing about color usage. Feel free to expand upon your Round 1 creation, this is exactly what we're doing here. Just make sure it makes sense

[bravelion83]

@Ryder From Round 2 thread:

Judging deadline: Monday February 10th 23:59 EDT

This can't be right, it's already passed! It's probably just a leftover from the previous round, but let us judges know when the actual deadline is for this round.

[RaikouRider]

Round 2: Can the submission be mythic rare, or must it be rare?

[Ryder]

@RaikouRider Regular Rare.
@bravelion83 Thanks, corrected.

[Ryder]

Double post, but an important notification: Please provide a link to your Round 1 card in Round 2!
@rtk1357 @Sojourner Dusk @slimytrout @jamblock