The MCC Discussion Thread

[bravelion83]

@bravelion83 for subchallenge 1 on September round 1, just to be sure, would a card that says "As long as you control a Food token..." count? It references Food tokens, but doesn't "use" them per say.

I'd say no, it doesn't count. It's not an active use of the token, or something you do to that token. In the clarifications I wrote that you need to "manipulate" the Food token. What I was picturing as I wrote that sentence is a tabletop game where you're physically taking the token in hand to do something with it. "As long as you control a Food" doesn't require you to take the token physically in your hand and do something with it, the token just needs to sit there, untouched by your fingers. So no, that doesn't count. You have to actively do something with/to the Food token. Adding this to the clarifications.

[Ink-Treader]

I have finished August's Round 4 judgments.

[Komandon]

For September's MCC involving food, bargains and celebrations. Does turning a non food into a food count as use or the reverse as in animating them.

[bravelion83]

For September's MCC involving food, bargains and celebrations. Does turning a non food into a food count as use or the reverse as in animating them.

@Komandon Turning a non-Food into a Food does NOT count as you're not "using" the Food, you're using something else, likely a spell or ability, to turn something into a Food.

At the contrary, turning a Food into something else DOES count. You're doing something actively involving the Food, and that's the whole point of the Subchallenge.

For example, animating one or more Food token(s), aka turning them into creatures, DOES count. The reverse (turning a creature into a Food) would NOT.

Hope this helps. Adding this to the clarifications.

[Komandon]

Thank you.

[bravelion83]

@Komandon If you still want to submit a card, remember the deadline is about three hours from the time of this post. If I know you need more time, let me know asap and I can wait a few more hours. Hours though, not days. The contest has to move on at a certain point.

[Raptorchan]

My congratulations for @slimytrout for making this August's round! You really managed to find an edge of these endless horizons.
@bravelion83, @Rithaniel, thanks for being there and trying your best until the end. There are still more horizons to be expanded!

[Rithaniel]

Congrats to slimytrout on the victory. It just goes to show you that sometimes the simplest designs are the wisest things to go for. With fewer moving parts, there is less that can go wrong.

I also just notice that all the cards we submitted for round 4 were some form of removal, and we all stayed in the realm of .

Also, thanks to Raptor for hosting the month. I love designs that mix-and-match mechanics, and modern horizons always was fun because of that. I was glad to get a chance to make a few cards with that theme in mind.

Reply

Show

Hide

Re: Exile all creatures for

I was basing that off of Merciless Eviction, Farewell, Final Judgment, and Descend upon the Sinful. I'm surprised it's considered "too expensive," but I did discover the existence of Sunfall just now when I was looking this up. Though, it seems that only Farewell has achieved any monetary value.

[bravelion83]

My congratulations to @slimytrout too, and my thanks to you, @Raptorchan for doing a job that's too often thankless, that of hosting. I'm still facepalming myself hard for that "rather than pay its mana value"... How's it possible I didn't catch it in editing? It's so obvious, I mean, it was right there all the time, and it's there also in my original MSE file, I've checked... I don't know if it might have made the difference, but it's a rookie myself that I still can't forgive me for... Oh, well, good for slimytrout. Congratulations again!

[Rithaniel]

My congratulations to @slimytrout too, and my thanks to you, @Raptorchan for doing a job that's too often thankless, that of hosting. I'm still facepalming myself hard for that "rather than pay its mana value"... How's it possible I didn't catch it in editing? It's so obvious, I mean, it was right there all the time, and it's there also in my original MSE file, I've checked... I don't know if it might have made the difference, but it's a rookie myself that I still can't forgive me for... Oh, well, good for slimytrout. Congratulations again!

Oh, don't sweat it, Leo. We all make mistakes. I put typos into plenty of submissions for the DCC. :]

[Raptorchan]

@bravelion83 not only that but you also forgot to specify where to exile black and white card from... I am quite surprised that @Ink-Treader didn't notice that, such a crucial part of the card's functionality.
But don't worry! And @bravelion83 I expect you to be no less harsh judge in September

[bravelion83]

@bravelion83 not only that but you also forgot to specify where to exile black and white card from...

D'OH! *looks for a facepalm emoji but doesn't find any* You exile them from your hand. That's what I meant. Did I really not say that? *checks MSE file* Yeah, I didn't... Ok, this was what my card was supposed to be:

Cutting Argumentation XWB
Sorcery (R)
You may exile a white card and a black card with total mana value X from your hand rather than pay this spell's mana cost.
Exile all creatures with power X or less.
"They say that words can be a weapon more powerful than swords. Allow me to demonstrate."
—Embrose, Silverquill dean

I am quite surprised that @Ink-Treader didn't notice that, such a crucial part of the card's functionality.
But don't worry!

Yeah, don't worry about it. I deserve not to have won this month making such...

My congratulations to @slimytrout too, and my thanks to you, @Raptorchan for doing a job that's too often thankless, that of hosting. I'm still facepalming myself hard for that "rather than pay its mana value"... How's it possible I didn't catch it in editing? It's so obvious, I mean, it was right there all the time, and it's there also in my original MSE file, I've checked... I don't know if it might have made the difference, but it's a rookie myself that I still can't forgive me for... Oh, well, good for slimytrout. Congratulations again!

...rookie mistakes. What does "rookie myself" even mean? *insert the facepalm emoji from before here too* I'm making typos while talking about making typos on my card... that's quite ironic...

And @bravelion83 I expect you to be no less harsh judge in September

Don't worry. I'll make my best as I always do. I'm working on it.

[bravelion83]

And @bravelion83 I expect you to be no less harsh judge in September

Don't worry. I'll make my best as I always do. I'm working on it.

It's done. At least for Round 1. You can find my own judgments at the bottom of the linked post. A reminder that technically they aren't final until the judging deadline (tomorrow night @void_nothing), but I see no changes coming unless I managed to make something big that I didn't realize.

[haywire]

Matron of the Enchanted Table
Creature — Faerie Wizard {R}
Flash
Flying
When Matron of the Enchanted Table enters the battlefield, tap each creature.
Celebration — At the beginning of each end step, if two or more nonland permanents entered the battlefield under your control this turn, each player creates two Food tokens.
Whenever a player sacrifices a Food, put a stun counter on up to one target creature. If that creature is tapped, scry 2.
No, eat, I insist. I know we've had bad blood in the past, but it's time to put that all to sleep.
3/3

I believe that the ETB effect would be worded as "tap all creatures" (-0.5).

I'm genuinely unsure on this one, since it's one that WotC even seems to occasionally change without any real reason that I can see. If we look at just tap effects, then "tap all" is by far the more common, with 15 cards with that wording, whereas the only card that features "tap each" is Aurelia's Fury, which obviously uses that wording due to the discrete damage check. But, if we look at untap effects, which are functionally symmetric, we have Port Razer using the "untap each" for a generic effect that is almost always "untap all", both before and after Commander Legends, as seen with Éomer, Marshal of Rohan, Relentless Assault, etc.

I think I agree that "tap all" is more correct, but the existence of Port Razer creates precedence for "[un]tap each" that I think means it should be allowed under the MCC rubric, as that is a relatively current set templating that has not been addressed or changed in a more recent set. The points here really don't matter as it doesn't change anything, but I am interested in whether or not a precedent of inconsistency in official MtG templating allows that inconsistency to be legal in MCC.

[Raptorchan]

@bravelion83 thank you very much for detailed judging!
Just wanted to note that many artifact-animating cards don't specify that the newly animated artifact creature is colorless.

I guess my real mistake was to write "becomes token" (guess I actually wanted to put it as "each Food token you control becomes"... too late!), not the artifact creature being colorless. But I can be wrong.

Also a side note: trailer for Throne of Eldraine doesn't actually end where you pointed: it has a small scene after the credits...

[bravelion83]

I am interested in whether or not a precedent of inconsistency in official MtG templating allows that inconsistency to be legal in MCC.

@haywire Technically, according to the guidelines, what counts in the MCC is the most recent Oracle wording available, but I agree we are in a grey area here with "(un)tap each" vs. "(un)tap all". With untapping, you can find precedent for both. But for tapping, I made a Gatherer search for "tap each" specifically excluding the word "untap", and it returned a single card: Aurelia's Fury, which you also mentioned yourself. At the contrary, "tap all" still excluding the word "untap" returns several results, including the simplest possible effect: the Oracle text for Ensnare. It says "Tap all creatures.", not "Tap each creature." It's not exactly recent, also because the current design philosophy tends to not allow symmetrical effects anymore, but it's still the current Oracle text, which means that it's the official wording of the card, the one that it would have if it were to be reprinted today and the one that would matter for a hypothetical judge call in an official tournament. If you want something more recent, there is Metal Fatigue for artifacts but that's also quite old by now even though it's less old than Ensnare at least.

As for Port Razer, I don't think it matters that much as a specific precedent as you can also find several other ones with the same or similar "untap each" wording, too many to be mentioned here but I also searched for that again just to be sure.

Even with my additional research, I'm still personally convinced your card would be worded as "tap all" if it were to be printed for real. I think the most relevant precedent for that is not Port Razer but the Oracle wording of Ensnare, that's exactly the effect you used on your card. Also, there are other game actions that use "all" and not "each", like for example Day of Judgment ("Destroy all creatures") or Final Judgment ("Exile all creatures").

@Raptorchan Yeah, turning cards into tokens was the biggest one by far, we agree on that. As for the "colorless", I also made additional research about that and you're right. There are cards that turn artifacts into artifact creatures without specifying the color. A recent example is Alloy Animist in BRO. I guess I was actually thinking about token creation, when you create an artifact creature token the color (or it being colorless) is always specified as far as I've been (edited for typo: this word was missing here) able to see on Gatherer.

Also a side note: trailer for Throne of Eldraine doesn't actually end where you pointed: it has a small scene after the credits...

You're right, I had forgotten about that. I'll add it to the spoiler.

[haywire]

@bravelion83 I definitely agree that "tap all" is more correct; I guess I'm just curious as to why Port Razer exists as written at all. I can't come up with any justification for the wording other than a mistake, and I guess my argument was more than if there is a recent precedent for that mistake to be legal on a printed card, then would following that line be hypothetically legal for MCC? For example, if it was an untap effect rather than tap so that it was identical, and I pointed to Port Razer as legal precedent, would that be sufficient to not be docked points?

Overall, I think I'm just curious about Port Razer's existence, because especially in recent printing, things that deviate in a meaningless (but as far as I can tell, wrong in the sense that Port Razer would be deducted in MCC for its wording) way like that are pretty rare, and so what is their effect on custom card creation rules?

[bravelion83]

I can't speak for custom card creation in general, if you're creating a custom card just for your own amusement you can obviously do whatever you want, I can just speak for this specific contest, the MCC, and only as a very experienced person involved in it and author of the contest guidelines. That document talks about wording in the section dedicated to explaining the rubric in detail, in particular when speaking about the Quality section:

(X/3) Quality: Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
Any mistake, no matter how little, in English orthography, grammar, or spelling will be punished here, as well as card formatting and current MTG templating. "Current" means as of the most recent real MTG set.

And then it goes on to explain what happens when they (Wizards) implement some new wording (in short: you can use both old and new wording until the set's Prerelease, after the Prerelease you can only use the new wording), but I think the relevant part is the one I quoted, in particular the sentence I've underlined. Then the same concept is reestablished in the FAQ section:

Which wording are we using?
Always the most up‐to‐date as possible.

And then the same explanation about changes in wording follows. That's my reference. So yes, them printing a new card that use a new variation in wording (Port Razer in ths case) DOES matter according to the letter of the guidelines. The spirit of the rule though is to care about big changes like the ones they did in M20 for example, not if they change a single word that doesn't change the meaning of the sentence anyway, and on top of that they still also use the other variation in an inconsistent way. The guidelines require judges to accept only the new wording when it's a "change" in the English meaning of the word: they did it in a certain way, then at a certain point in time they switch to a different way of writing and don't use the previous way anymore. Here the thing is that they still also use the other way, and if the old way is also still being used, that's also part of the "current wording" that judges are required to check your card against, so in that case the guidelines have nothing against it and they essentially let the judge decide, with the idea that the submission should be as close to a real card as possible, including wording. So, in the end, in this specific case I believe it's up to the judge to decide whether or not Port Razer counts as a legal precedent. That will be true until they decide to get rid of the other way to word it. As long as they don't get rid of it for good, and as long as there is a single precedent for a wording and many more for the other, it's within the judge's right to dock points. Now, they also must not go crazy with it: if I, as a judge, dock you half the points in Quality for this, that's a clear mistake in judging. But docking only half a point, the minimum possible deduction, could be reasonable. The real question is this: if Port Razer has a difference from standard wording, is Port Razer an outlier or the starting of a new trend? I guess we'll discover when the next real card with a similar effect is printed.

Anyway, in this specific case, and here I'm speaking about my own personal opinion and not about the guidelines, is Port Razer's wording really new? I made two Gatherer searches for specific phrases: "untap all creatures you control" returns 27 results, "untap each creature you control" returns 6, one of which is a split card, so they are actually 5. Yes, Port Razer is among those 5, but all the other four predate it. They already used Port Razer's wording previously, it's not actually new. It's less frequent than the other one, sure, but it's not new. It's not the first time it has been used. If you're curious, those other four cards are: Augusta, Dean of Order from Strixhaven, Ivorytusk Fortress from Khans of Tarkir, Unity of Purpose from Oath of the Gatewatch, and the Ready half of Ready // Willing from Dragon's Maze, the split card that I was mentioning before. All the four sets I named have been printed before Commander Legends, the set that contains the first and so far only printing of Port Razer. So I don't feel Port Razer raised a new issue now: its wording was already in use, rarely, but it still already was.

Finally, I don't know if I would have deducted points for this as a judge if I had to judge Port Razer in the MCC. Probably I would have, considered that there is much more precedent for the other wording (27 vs. 5), but I can see other judges not deducting any points, and I feel like that would also be a valid choice. I could even see myself also not deducting any points. I would have to think about it. I don't know which way I would have chosen in the end. It would certainly be a hard decision to make, one that I'm glad I don't have to actually do right now.

[bravelion83]

Round 2 for September is up now.

[Ink-Treader]

Is anyone lined up to host October? I'm interested in hosting, though it will be my first time. I know at the very least I'll need to put together a banner for the month, as well as the challenges of course.

[void_nothing]

Is anyone lined up to host October? I'm interested in hosting, though it will be my first time. I know at the very least I'll need to put together a banner for the month, as well as the challenges of course.

Not at this time, and we'd welcome you as host. Everyone has to start at some point, after all! Whatever guidance you need in order to do this all-important service to the CCC community, I can offer it - feel free to PM me at any time.

[bravelion83]

Is anyone lined up to host October? I'm interested in hosting, though it will be my first time. I know at the very least I'll need to put together a banner for the month, as well as the challenges of course.

Not at this time, and we'd welcome you as host. Everyone has to start at some point, after all! Whatever guidance you need in order to do this all-important service to the CCC community, I can offer it - feel free to PM me at any time.

Me too if you need it. For example, I have the original png file of the core-set-style MCC logo, if you need it for your banner, or if you want me to make one based on the card(s) of your choice, or if you need anything really that I could help you with, just ask. We always need new blood for the contest, metaphorically obviously!

[haywire]

@bravelion83 in your clarifications for September Round 2, you say:

On some cards, if the sentence "If you control another Role on it, put that one into the graveyard." doesn't fit, it's cut from the reminder text, but only that one specific sentence.

However, this isn't true. Charming Scoundrel omits any role reminder text whatsoever. With this in mind, is that allowable for our submissions if the reminder text wouldn't fit on the card?

[Venedrex]

New Blood

One of us, one of us.

[bravelion83]

@bravelion83 in your clarifications for September Round 2, you say:

On some cards, if the sentence "If you control another Role on it, put that one into the graveyard." doesn't fit, it's cut from the reminder text, but only that one specific sentence.

However, this isn't true. Charming Scoundrel omits any role reminder text whatsoever. With this in mind, is that allowable for our submissions if the reminder text wouldn't fit on the card?

You can always omit reminder text if it doesn't fit on a rare or mythic, that's the case in all sets, not just WOE, it's a general rule. Charming Scoundrel is a rare so it falls under this case, not the one I was talking about in the clarifications. I was talking about the cards in WOE that drop the sentence about having only one Role on a creature and just mention the ability that the Role grants. I believe there are some such cards at lower rarities too (I would have to check though), and that's what I was talking about. That clarification is not about cards like the Scoundrel that omit reminder text completely at rare and above. (Edited for typos.)