December MCC Round 4 (finals)
Deviations
As is tradition by now, this month we will celebrate the latest set, in this case The Brothers' War, by exploring its mechanics and themes, as usual in this kind of MCC months.
There are many kinds of deviations. In BRO's story we see essentially a temporal deviation, a travel back to a past that once was in between two pieces of the present. But that's just one. Maybe a bridge has broken and a road deviation has been set up. Buses also deviate their routes as a consequence. A ship might be headed right towards a huge obstacle and it might have to deviate its own route. A projectile can deviate its own trajectory if an external force acts on it. And sometimes you just have to deviate from the path you though you were walking on in your own personal life because, you know, things outside of our own control (unfortunately most of the time) do happen. Sometimes you just have to deviate from some kind of guidelines you might have even written yourself for some kind of contest on some remote place in a vast sea called "the internet", just for the sake and the duration of one single round. And maybe you think you might have already done this once before and all you have is just a vague memory of a different website from years ago, and you aren't even certain about it... Maybe back at the time when some kind of eldritch moon was rising? Maybe... But anyway, if there is a good reason, and not just because you feel like it or just because you can, is it worth to take that deviation? I don't know. I have no definitive answer to that question, yet here we are. Taking that deviation for just one round. Three finalists, three cards each. Not one card as it's written in my own guidelines, but three. Yes, that's a deviation. Yes, I know it. And yes, it was planned since the beginning. Now let's just enjoy this deviation and let's walk on it. If there were just two of us here, you could say we are a pair. There are actually more of us here, but it doesn't matter. All that matters is that we're taking this deviation together.
Main Challenge - Design a new meld pair. This means three "cards": the two front faces and the melded permanent on the combined back faces.
Subchallenge 1 - None of the three "cards" shares any of its colors with the other two.
Subchallenge 2 - None of the three "cards" is a mythic and at most one of them is a regular rare.
Clarifications
Show
Hide
Main Challenge
• It should be self-explanatory. You might want to check the Wiki page about meld and/or rules 701.37 and 713 in the BRO edition of the CR. They're too long to be quoted here, especially rule 713. You can go look at them yourself if you want and if you need.
• I'm using the word "cards" in quotation marks because they are actually two cards. The faces are three, but the physical cards are just two. What I'm actually referring to is the three faces, but I thought it would be more intuitive if I just called them cards.
Subchallenge 1
• They can be monocolored, multicolored, whatever you want, as long as any of the three doesn't share any color with the other two. Pick one and ask yourself: does it share any colors, even just a single one, with any of the other two? Then repeat the same question for each of the other two you didn't pick the first time. All three answers must be "no" for this Subchallenge to be met.
• You can have one or more of the three faces be colorless. If a card is colorless it can't share a color with any other cards because... yes, all together now! Colorless is not a color! A meld pair made of all colorless faces does pass this Subchallenge.
• We're talking actual color here (mana cost and color indicator), not color identity. You can have all the overlapping colored mana symbols in the rules text that you want.
Subchallenge 2
• Yes, the back face of a meld pair has a rarity if you have never realized before. On all six existing meld pairs, three from EMN and three from BRO, you can find it in the information at the bottom of the card. The three ones from EMN also have a colored expansion symbol, while the ones from BRO do not but they still have that little "M" at the bottom, so they also do have a rarity.
• So far, all six existing meld pairs have a mythic back face except for Chittering Host which is a common. This subchallenge also asks you to deviate from the established pattern and asks you to avoid mythic at all and allows you to use regular rare only a single time out of the three "cards". The other two must be both either common or uncommon. It's up to you to choose if you want one of the three to be regular rare at all (having all three of them being common or uncommon is also a valid option here), and if so, which one. It could be the front face with the meld ability, the front face that gets melded with the first one, or the combined back face. Your choice.
• Yes, the only existing cards that would pass this Subchallenge are the Rats from EMN. None of the other five would. It's about time for a deviation, isn't it?
If you have any questions, post them in the MCC discussion thread.
• It should be self-explanatory. You might want to check the Wiki page about meld and/or rules 701.37 and 713 in the BRO edition of the CR. They're too long to be quoted here, especially rule 713. You can go look at them yourself if you want and if you need.
• I'm using the word "cards" in quotation marks because they are actually two cards. The faces are three, but the physical cards are just two. What I'm actually referring to is the three faces, but I thought it would be more intuitive if I just called them cards.
Subchallenge 1
• They can be monocolored, multicolored, whatever you want, as long as any of the three doesn't share any color with the other two. Pick one and ask yourself: does it share any colors, even just a single one, with any of the other two? Then repeat the same question for each of the other two you didn't pick the first time. All three answers must be "no" for this Subchallenge to be met.
• You can have one or more of the three faces be colorless. If a card is colorless it can't share a color with any other cards because... yes, all together now! Colorless is not a color! A meld pair made of all colorless faces does pass this Subchallenge.
• We're talking actual color here (mana cost and color indicator), not color identity. You can have all the overlapping colored mana symbols in the rules text that you want.
Subchallenge 2
• Yes, the back face of a meld pair has a rarity if you have never realized before. On all six existing meld pairs, three from EMN and three from BRO, you can find it in the information at the bottom of the card. The three ones from EMN also have a colored expansion symbol, while the ones from BRO do not but they still have that little "M" at the bottom, so they also do have a rarity.
• So far, all six existing meld pairs have a mythic back face except for Chittering Host which is a common. This subchallenge also asks you to deviate from the established pattern and asks you to avoid mythic at all and allows you to use regular rare only a single time out of the three "cards". The other two must be both either common or uncommon. It's up to you to choose if you want one of the three to be regular rare at all (having all three of them being common or uncommon is also a valid option here), and if so, which one. It could be the front face with the meld ability, the front face that gets melded with the first one, or the combined back face. Your choice.
• Yes, the only existing cards that would pass this Subchallenge are the Rats from EMN. None of the other five would. It's about time for a deviation, isn't it?
If you have any questions, post them in the MCC discussion thread.
DEADLINES
Design deadline: Monday, January 9th, 2023 23:59 EST Tuesday, January 10th, 2023 23:59 EST
Judging deadline: Monday, January 16th, 2023 23:59 EST
Yes, it's totally intentional to give players one whole week to design and myself one whole week to judge. After all, each player will essentially have to design three cards instead of just one, and I will have to judge nine even though I'll treat each meld pair as a single entity... Yes, I've known this since the beginning. For once, I expected this month to bleed into the next one exactly because of this. If you noticed, I don't think I've ever brought up this month my usual point about finishing within the month, and if you wonder, knowing this round was coming is exactly the reason why I haven't done that.
RUBRIC
MCC Rubric
Show
Hide
Design
(X/3) Appeal - Do the different player psychographics (Timmy/Johhny/Spike) have a use for the card?
(X/3) Elegance - Is the card easily understandable at a glance? Do all the flavor and mechanics combined as a whole make sense?
Development
(X/3) Viability - How well does the card fit into the color wheel? Does it break or bend the rules of the game? Is it the appropriate rarity?
(X/3) Balance - Does the card have a power level appropriate for contemporary constructed/limited environments without breaking them? Does it play well in casual and multiplayer formats? Does it create or fit into a deck/archetype? Does it create an oppressive environment?
Creativity
(X/3) Uniqueness - Has a card like this ever been printed before? Does it use new mechanics, ideas, or design space? Does it combine old ideas in a new way? Overall, does it feel "fresh"?
(X/3) Flavor - Does the name seem realistic for a card? Does the flavor text sound professional? Do all the flavor elements synch together to please Vorthos players?
Polish
(X/3) Quality - Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
(X/2) Main Challenge (*) - Was the main challenge satisfied? Was it approached in a unique or interesting way? Does the card fit the intent of the challenge?
(X/2) Subchallenges - One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Total: X/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
(X/3) Appeal - Do the different player psychographics (Timmy/Johhny/Spike) have a use for the card?
(X/3) Elegance - Is the card easily understandable at a glance? Do all the flavor and mechanics combined as a whole make sense?
Development
(X/3) Viability - How well does the card fit into the color wheel? Does it break or bend the rules of the game? Is it the appropriate rarity?
(X/3) Balance - Does the card have a power level appropriate for contemporary constructed/limited environments without breaking them? Does it play well in casual and multiplayer formats? Does it create or fit into a deck/archetype? Does it create an oppressive environment?
Creativity
(X/3) Uniqueness - Has a card like this ever been printed before? Does it use new mechanics, ideas, or design space? Does it combine old ideas in a new way? Overall, does it feel "fresh"?
(X/3) Flavor - Does the name seem realistic for a card? Does the flavor text sound professional? Do all the flavor elements synch together to please Vorthos players?
Polish
(X/3) Quality - Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
(X/2) Main Challenge (*) - Was the main challenge satisfied? Was it approached in a unique or interesting way? Does the card fit the intent of the challenge?
(X/2) Subchallenges - One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Total: X/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
JUDGES
bravelion83
PLAYERS
@slimytrout
@void_nothing
@marioguy3
A reminder to everyone:
In the MCC, putting rarity on cards is mandatory! If you don't put a rarity on your card, expect huge deductions in both Viability AND Quality.
Please check out the MCC Guidelines and FAQ if you have the will and time. Link in my signature. Among the many things you can find there are a detailed explanation of the rubric (section 6.2) and the recommended card formatting (section 4) that you should use to format your text cards. Expect deductions in Quality otherwise.
