MTGNexus

Sojourner Dusk wrote: ↑

3 years ago

That is why it's colorless mana, not generic. It's much easier to generate RR or even RRR than CC, unless you're playing in Eternal formats. Shocks, Checks, Tris, and Fetches make color fixing a LOT easier to pull off than colorless generation. I recall playing Standard during Lorwyn and going against 5CC, where they cast Cryptic Command on turn 4 and Cruel Ultimatum on Turn 7 with no issues (barring missing a land drop). Those decks could handily generate any color with Vivids and Reflecting Pool, but would have struggled to consistently generate colorless mana.

I also played that Standard, At that point colorless mana did not exist. If a deck wanted to use it, it'd play Adarkar Wastes and Mystic Gate instead of Hallowed Fountain and Glacial Fortress. It wouldn't probably work in 5c, but any color pair or even trio could play the Compass on turn 3 reliably.

Sojourner Dusk wrote: ↑

3 years ago

Path of Discovery can also be played in multiples, and the effect will trigger for each copy. My submission was Legendary to avoid this.

That is not nearly drawback enough. You do not want to see the Compass in multiples until late game, which isn't what the decks wanting it would care about.

Sojourner Dusk wrote: ↑

3 years ago

bravelion83: When you reviewed Rithaniel's card, did you take into account that it can target other players' creatures?

At first I thought you were talking about the trigger, then I realized you're actually talking about the activated ability. You're right, "you control" is not there and I judged the card as if it was there. You have my full admission here. I'm not perfect, I make mistake and I don't want to, even if in this case it was more like an omission than a mistake... I'm a perfectionist, and as I like to say this is a blessing and a curse at the same time. A blessing, because it makes you always strive to do better, to act better, to be better and better in everything you do, and in the end among all the things you do there will be something good. A curse because you always see the bad in things and you get angry at yourself when somebody makes you see you could have done better. And that anger takes a lot of time to pass, at least to me, but now back on track. No, I didn't consider it because I didn't see it. My (insert censorable adjective here) brain assumed that "you control" was there when it wasn't. My bad. But it also seems useless to me to change scores when we're past the judging deadline (so the guidelines, which I happened to write myself, wouldn't allow me to change score now even if I wanted), round 3 has already been posted, and the outcome wouldn't change anyway: even if I removed a couple points in Balance (and 2 points is a lot to deduct), he'd still advance. I'd say let's end it here with my admission of guiltness and let's move on. Thanks for the feedback and for making me consider something I didn't at first though.

Also, @void_nothing, can I start preparing to host June?
And while we're here, two clarifications for judging purposes:
1- Does a DFC that's a land on the front face and a creature on the back face count (aka pass the Main Challenge) for May Round 3, or does it explicitly have to be a Treetop Village or Mutavault-style land?
2- Does hybrid mana count for Subchallenge 1? In other words, does a land where the only colored mana symbols were hybrid pass Subchallenge 1? Something like this:

CARDNAME
Land (?)
T: Add C.
{R/W}: CARDNAME becomes a N/N red and white creature with first strike (or whatever in-color keyword).

It has a single mana symbol but that's of two colors. Does it pass Subchallenge 1? Thank you in advance.

Ryder wrote: ↑

3 years ago

I also played that Standard, At that point colorless mana did not exist. If a deck wanted to use it, it'd play Adarkar Wastes and Mystic Gate

Uh... you do know colorless mana has been part of the game since Alpha, though the wingding that denotes it is a recent change? Also, I don't know that the filter lands were ever used competitively. Painlands, which debuted in Ice Age and Apocalypse, have fallen out of favor to Ravnica's Shocklands for competitive use due to not being fetchable. I disagree with your assessment, but I'm not challenging it.

bravelion83 wrote: ↑

3 years ago

But it also seems useless to me to change scores when we're past the judging deadline (so the guidelines, which I happened to write myself, wouldn't allow me to change score now even if I wanted)

I thought we had this conversation before, where I explained my comments are not meant to change scores. Don't beat yourself up. Your brain pulled an auto-complete. Been there plenty of times. It's not like this compares to the overlooked possibility of Oko's ability being used on an opponent's creatures and/or artifacts. Or JtMS being given fateseal as a + ability.

Sojourner Dusk wrote: ↑

3 years ago

Uh... you do know colorless mana has been part of the game since Alpha, though the wingding that denotes it is a recent change? Also, I don't know that the filter lands were ever used competitively. Painlands, which debuted in Ice Age and Apocalypse, have fallen out of favor to Ravnica's Shocklands for competitive use due to not being fetchable.

Sure, it has, but as you say, C is a relatively recent addition. Now I wonder which competitive do you have in mind? Filter lands were used extensively in Standard and here I'm not 100% sure, but very likely also in Extended. Pain lands used to be Standard staples. It's all about context. Cards designed for Legacy shouldn't be warping Standard and vice-versa.

Sojourner Dusk wrote: ↑

3 years ago

1) bravelion83: When you reviewed Rithaniel's card, did you take into account that it can target other players' creatures? From what I read, it doesn't appear so. With a Lantern of Insight in play, his card can guarantee getting rid of problematic or difficult creatures.

bravelion83 wrote: ↑

3 years ago

You're right, "you control" is not there and I judged the card as if it was there.

Really? My sensibilities tell me that having "you control" on the activated ability would make the card far too narrow, and therefore weak, which would result in a lower balance score.

This is part of why I made the card cost five mana, because it has the potential to remove creatures. Now, either way you use it, it's a gamble unless you have the ability to see the top card of a deck. Hence, it's a build-around card, directed mostly towards Johnny. Sure, if you have that one-mana artifact from fifth dawn, you can more generally ensure removal of creatures, but you still don't have a guarantee, as your opponent will generally have lands in their deck.

That being said, a control-based card that involves gambling unless you are building around it (and even then, still isn't sure-fire) is still fairly weak. I was afraid of losing points to that, more than anything.

slimytrout wrote: ↑

3 years ago

I don't want to spark conflict, and I definitely don't want to criticize Ryder, but I do think this is worth discussion:

Ryder wrote: ↑

3 years ago

No problems here. However, I've seen your thread asking for help with the templating, which you received. You basically had your card pre-judged and could still edit. That wasn't too sportsmanlike. That's why I'm taking 0.01 off here.

I personally think that people shouldn't be discouraged from seeking help, especially if templating isn't something that comes naturally to them. My feeling is that the MCC has such strong quality controls so that people are encouraged to get better and make an effort to produce print-ready cards, and part of doing that could be reaching out to the community for help. But I would certainly be curious what others think.

I'll second this. There's no rule against getting help with your design, as far as I am aware. It'd be more unsportsmanlike to expect a person to lose points because of the fact that they received help. Of course, when I am judging, I'm also much more forgiving of quality "mistakes" than other judges.

Anyways, unless it's an entire council of people working to produce a single card, I don't think there's any cause for concern.

Quality 2.99/3 - No problems here. However, I've seen your thread asking for help with the templating, which you received. You basically had your card pre-judged and could still edit. That wasn't too sportsmanlike. That's why I'm taking 0.01 off here.

Everyone's seen it- I get help in every MCC with templating. I did with every competition on mtgsalvation. Also void-nothing replied to the first one of those threads and gave me templating advice on here in mtgnexus and organises most of the threads as far as i'm aware.

Also it's not to be unsportsmanlike I have a disability (which you weren't to know ) so I struggle with small details (commas, wording, capitalisation). I had the same issue at uni with Harvard referencing. They changed they're whole referencing policy the next year because they auto-failed me on an B graded assignment because my referencing was a bit off on the small details and I had to redo the year.

Anyway enough of my life story- i'm just saying when 0.01 points breaks a tie breaker and knocks you out the top 3 it might as well have been 0 points.

EDIT: Apologies for jumping in the middle I wasn't aware this had already been bought up on the thread. I'd only just checked the scores (I'm working on my dissertation atm :/).

@bravelion83 Yes, June is all yours. Thanks in advance for taking the month.

@void_nothing Thank you. Judge signup thread coming up asap (which might actually require a few hours, but not too much). I think you've missed my clarification requests for May Round 3:

I did not miss. I edited the round thread's clarification spoiler.

I didn't look at the round thread today yet, so I didn't see it. I would have seen it later in the day. Oh, well, thank you for that too then.

EDIT - In the meantime, the judge signup thread for June has been posted.

And now for a lot of answers. A lot has been going on in this thread while I was away to sleep:

@Rithaniel

Rithaniel wrote: ↑

3 years ago

I'll second this. There's no rule against getting help with your design, as far as I am aware.

Please see section 5.3.4 of the guidelines, called "External help":

All cards you submit to this contest must be your own creation. If you have troubles with finding the correct wording for your card, first try to look for similar cards on Gatherer, Scryfall, or other card databases. Then, if you still have trouble, you're allowed to pm a rules guru or an experienced MCC judge to ask for advice. They are not required or forced to give you advice in any way, but if you ask politely, most will. That's the only case when outside help is allowed.

Notice that "only" at the end. Asking for help with wording is the only admitted case of external help, even if it should be done by pm. That's explicitly written in the guidelines, and as far as I know it has always been this way in the MCC, even on Salvation.

Rithaniel wrote: ↑

3 years ago

Really? My sensibilities tell me that having "you control" on the activated ability would make the card far too narrow, and therefore weak, which would result in a lower balance score.

But two whole points lower? Or better, two and a half, which was the deduction you would have needed to get eliminated and have somebody else advance instead of you? I should have given you 0.5 in Balance for that to happen. While it's true that I didn't realize the removal potential at all, it's also true that it wouldn't have changed the outcome, intending not the scores but who advances.

@Stankweed Imp

Stankweed Imp wrote: ↑

3 years ago

I get help in every MCC with templating. I did with every competition on mtgsalvation.

That's perfectly fine, at least in the MCC. See again the quoted section of the guidelines, above in this post.

Stankweed Imp wrote: ↑

3 years ago

Also it's not to be unsportsmanlike I have a disability (which you weren't to know ) so I struggle with small details (commas, wording, capitalisation).

Here in Italy you could get certified for that and have specific kinds of help if you were a student in school. In Italian, you'd be called a DSA student, and there are some in every class. If you care, the acronym stands for "disturbi specifici di apprendimento", which would translate to something like "specific learning disturb" in English. A lot of people are in your condition, way more than you might think, and I'm saying this as a teacher myself. You're not alone. I also have my own problems, that might or might not be recognized as disability, I had the final decisive visit on March 23rd, and it has been postponed indefinitely due to the pandemic. Somebody here knows what I'm talking about, you weren't among those people who knew about me, but again, you're not alone. I am with you at the very least, and I'm sure other people are too. I am open to talking more about my own potential disability if you want to know more, just not here publicly. If you want, just write me a pm and I'll tell you everything in detail. Once again, you're not alone, and I totally understand you both as a teacher and as a person. Sorry, I've got those reversed: first as a person and only then as a teacher. I've got you, don't worry.

bravelion83 wrote: ↑

3 years ago

Rithaniel

Rithaniel wrote: ↑

3 years ago

I'll second this. There's no rule against getting help with your design, as far as I am aware.

Please see section 5.3.4 of the guidelines, called "External help":

All cards you submit to this contest must be your own creation. If you have troubles with finding the correct wording for your card, first try to look for similar cards on Gatherer, Scryfall, or other card databases. Then, if you still have trouble, you're allowed to pm a rules guru or an experienced MCC judge to ask for advice. They are not required or forced to give you advice in any way, but if you ask politely, most will. That's the only case when outside help is allowed.

Notice that "only" at the end. Asking for help with wording is the only admitted case of external help, even if it should be done by pm. That's explicitly written in the guidelines, and as far as I know it has always been this way in the MCC, even on Salvation.

Ah, well now I know.

bravelion83 wrote: ↑

3 years ago

Rithaniel wrote: ↑

3 years ago

Really? My sensibilities tell me that having "you control" on the activated ability would make the card far too narrow, and therefore weak, which would result in a lower balance score.

But two whole points lower? Or better, two and a half, which was the deduction you would have needed to get eliminated and have somebody else advance instead of you? I should have given you 0.5 in Balance for that to happen. While it's true that I didn't realize the removal potential at all, it's also true that it wouldn't have changed the outcome, intending not the scores but who advances.

Oh, of course. In the end, I'm generally fine with any evaluation a judge puts forward.

My comments were mainly me sharing my differing view on the balance, in this case. What I read seemed to imply that people suspected it would be too strong with the ability to target opposing creatures. This caught me off guard, as it's contrary to my instincts. Hence, I decided to share my thoughts

Rithaniel wrote: ↑

3 years ago

My comments were mainly me sharing my differing view on the balance, in this case. What I read seemed to imply that people suspected it would be too strong with the ability to target opposing creatures. This caught me off guard, as it's contrary to my instincts.

I didn't think the card was too strong. I read brave's review and noticed it didn't seem to reflect awareness that this could target an opponent's (or teammate's) creatures. My initial critique when I read your submission was "Why not Rakdos?" There's more, but I'm not a Judge this month. Next month, however...

Sojourner Dusk wrote: ↑

3 years ago

I didn't think the card was too strong. I read brave's review and noticed it didn't seem to reflect awareness that this could target an opponent's (or teammate's) creatures. My initial critique when I read your submission was "Why not Rakdos?" There's more, but I'm not a Judge this month. Next month, however...

Ah, fair enough. I just misunderstood, in that case.

@bravelion83, I know your clarifications said "in any way," but I just wanted to make sure that it was kosher to use keyword counters that didn't exist yet, as in my current submission.

slimytrout wrote: ↑

3 years ago

bravelion83, I know your clarifications said "in any way," but I just wanted to make sure that it was kosher to use keyword counters that didn't exist yet, as in my current submission.

@slimytrout My intention was to only use things from Ikoria. You can't use keyword counters that aren't in Ikoria's main set or Commander decks. I'm sorry, but otherwise this would go against everything that will follow this month. Adding this to the clarifications. I advise you to adjust your submission accordingly.

Sojourner Dusk wrote: ↑

3 years ago

it didn't seem to reflect awareness that this could target an opponent's (or teammate's) creatures

In fact I didn't think of it at all until it was brought up here, but it was already too late, past the judging deadline, and I didn't change the scores as it wouldn't have changed who advanced.

So... I probably shouldn't mention that I saw @slimytrout's card as strong sideboard tech against an opponent with an Explore deck? I mean, would you want to risk playing Jadelight Ranger with that sitting on the other side of the board?


I'm looking at the early entries for June and I'm ordering a case of red pens. So many point deductions to enforce. There are three cards from IKO people should be looking at primarily for design/templating guidance, though many non-Blue cards with the word "counter" might be helpful. If you're not sure which three cards I mean, don't worry... I'll reference them in my judgments.

If my card interacts with keyword counters but doesn't specifically reference them, does that qualify for the challenge?

@Sojourner Dusk, surely you mean @Rithaniel's card? Mine wasn't a hate card at all.

Hey @bravelion83 is it your intention to have our cards be Ikoria-flavored? Would it hurt if I made a card using the Ikoria mechanic but for a completely different setting?

slimytrout wrote: ↑

3 years ago

Sojourner Dusk, surely you mean Rithaniel's card? Mine wasn't a hate card at all.

What are you talking about? As you can clearly see in the quoted post below, I only mentioned Rithaniel, not you.

Sojourner Dusk wrote: ↑

3 years ago

So... I probably shouldn't mention that I saw @slimytrout's @Moss Elemental's @rancored_elf's Rithaniel's card as strong sideboard tech against an opponent with an Explore deck? I mean, would you want to risk playing Jadelight Ranger with that sitting on the other side of the board?

Ryder wrote: ↑

3 years ago

Hey bravelion83 is it your intention to have our cards be Ikoria-flavored? Would it hurt if I made a card using the Ikoria mechanic but for a completely different setting?

No. Ikoria mechanics, not necessarily flavor. Feel free to set your card on a different plane, as long as it uses keyword counters that can be found in the Ikoria main set or Commander decks.

EDIT - In other news, my judgments for May Round 3 are in.

Pygyzy wrote: ↑

3 years ago

If my card interacts with keyword counters but doesn't specifically reference them, does that qualify for the challenge?

@bravelion83

Discussion time for May's Round 3.

Originally, I was going to have my submission read ": Add one mana of any color." But I wanted colorless mana to also be an option. So I wondered where in Da Rules are the colors of Magic defined? What prevents us from adding purple, pink, or orange mana? That would be Rule 106.1a, where the five colors of mana are set.

Wait, what's that next line?

Comprehensive Rules wrote: 106.1. Mana is the primary resource in the game. Players spend mana to pay costs, usually when casting spells and activating abilities.
106.1a There are five colors of mana: white, blue, black, red, and green.
106.1b There are six types of mana: white, blue, black, red, green, and colorless.

There are a number of cards that have cared about type, with Ice Cauldron being one of the best examples. Read the rules errata sometime when you have half an hour to spare. Short version: it tracks exactly what type(s) of mana are spent when activating the first ability. Of course, if you want to look at the first card that specifically mentioned "type of mana," you have to go all the way back to 1993: Mana Flare|LEA. Also, when the {CENSORED} is WotC going to get around to reprinting this and/or the colorshifted version in a supplemental product?

I'm honestly perplexed as to why "Add one mana of any type" has never been printed on a card since the rules have always supported it as an option. I'm also one of the {EXPLETIVE}s that thinks playing Ritual of Subdual (oh, look, the errata states "colorless mana instead of any other type") with Eon Hub in EDH is fun. I'm hoping that the "one mana of any type" appears on cards for Zendikar: The Aftermath, and that the wingding is finally evergreen'd for costs instead of just mana generation.

---

On an semi-unrelated topic, if no one is hosting July, I have an idea I could run. It's been 15 months; it should be safe to give it another go.

Pygyzy wrote: ↑

3 years ago

If my card interacts with keyword counters but doesn't specifically reference them, does that qualify for the challenge?

@Pygyzy No, otherwise everything would pass. Moving or removing any or all counters, or whatever else you come up with. You can do whatever you want with them, but you must specifically call them out.

@Sojourner Dusk You're right here too. That's the difference between "color" of mana and "type" of mana, and it has been this way for sure since I started playing in 2005, but maybe even before. It's just that "Add one mana of any type" has no existing precedent for it. How's it possible? Who knows? Maybe they never thought of that, or they are afraid of non-existent rules issues, or whatever. Maybe they're afraid it would kinda be the next Dryad Arbor. And maybe we will see it in Zendikar Rising. Again, who knows?

@Sojourner Dusk No one is penciled in for July yet. The month is all yours.