The MCC Discussion Thread

[haywire]

Gotcha, I just misinterpreted "but only that one specific sentence" to imply that the other reminder text was somehow required (and it didn't seem that far fetched, as from what I can tell, Charming Scoundrel is the only card in the whole set that omits it)

[kwanyeegor-ii]

@Rithaniel just want to say your MCC round 2 card has to create a role token, not just reference them...

[Rithaniel]

@Rithaniel just want to say your MCC round 2 card has to create a role token, not just reference them...

Ah, right. Dankeschön

[bravelion83]

@Rithaniel just want to say your MCC round 2 card has to create a role token, not just reference them...

Ah, right. Dankeschön

Just as confirmation, kwanyeegor-ii is correct. The Main Challenge has you explicitly create the Role token, "you can only reference it" is for the Subchallenge.

[void_nothing]

Going to try to finish my September round 2 judgments tonight, and if not, tomorrow.

[bravelion83]

Going to try to finish my September round 2 judgments tonight, and if not, tomorrow.

Same for me. Most probably tomorrow.

EDIT: Done, Waiting for @void_nothing's judgments to post the next round.
@Rithaniel I'm really sorry. Please read my final comment in my judgment of your card.

[bravelion83]

Round 3 for September is up now.

[Ink-Treader]

Round 1 for October is up, as is the judge sign up thread. Pardon it being posted out of order (and a tad early)

[bravelion83]

I'm sorry, but due to real life matters I won't talk about here, my own judgments for September Round 3 will have to be delayed probably by a couple of days. Again, I'm sorry.

[void_nothing]

My September round 3 judgments should come tomorrow, or Tuesday the latest - I haven't felt well physically for about a day and a half but hopefully rest and cold medicine will do the trick.

[kwanyeegor-ii]

@KB52665 As the challenge clarification says your card has to be one or more colors

[KB52665]

Does a colorless card in this context satisfy the challenge if its color identity is one or more colors?

[Ink-Treader]

Does a colorless card in this context satisfy the challenge if its color identity is one or more colors?

No. At the very least, you'd need rules text (or a color indicator) stating what colors it is, which wouldn't be in the spirit of the main challenge, in my mind, but would be valid.

Edit: I've seen your current card, and it's perfectly valid for the Main Challenge. It actually is five colors, after all.

[KB52665]

Does a colorless card in this context satisfy the challenge if its color identity is one or more colors?

No. At the very least, you'd need rules text (or a color indicator) stating what colors it is, which wouldn't be in the spirit of the main challenge, in my mind, but would be valid.

Edit: I've seen your current card, and it's perfectly valid for the Main Challenge. It actually is five colors, after all.

I had considered using text on the back side and keeping the cost 5. Because I made it wubrg I added more benefit to the card than I felt was appropriate to the original vision. But given your input on the matter I will leave it as it is.

[bravelion83]

My judgments for March Round 3 have been completed. I see void_nothing's ones also are. I will wait a few hours to allow people to comment on the judgments if they wish and then I will post the final round. Expect it later today.

[Raptorchan]

Thanks for the judgements! It's nice to see your cards being rated that high.

On a side note, I wanted to say that most (especially WOE) Adventure cards suffer from flavor problems - an "Adventure" event usually doesn't feel like an adventure at all, rather it's just some simple performed action, which is sad.

Same can be applied to my card, but... I thought it would be cool to depict an event that triggered a creature's desire to go on adventure. And that's exactly what happened to Valiant Tailor in its fairy tale.
That's all.

[haywire]

@bravelion83 @void_nothing Just wanted to comment on your judgements on my card for September Round 3. I definitely agree with the judgements, but wanted to clarify the flavor I was trying to go for. Here's the card as a refresher if needed:

Ashbloom Hydra // Uncontrollable Flame

Show

Hide

Ashbloom Hydra XXGW
Creature — Hydra {R}
Ashbloom Hydra enters the battlefield with X +1/+1 counters on it.
When Ashbloom Hydra enters the battlefield, return up to X target permanents with mana value 3 or less from your graveyard to the battlefield. Draw a card for each land that entered the battlefield this way.
0/0
//
Uncontrollable Flame 3RR
Sorcery — Adventure
Uncontrollable Flame deals 3 damage to each creature. Whenever a nontoken creature dealt damage this way dies this turn, it deals 2 damage to its controller unless they sacrifice a land.

Both of you made comments that the flavor between the adventure and creature were disconnected, and it was something I struggled with quite a bit, but ultimately couldn't find a good way to include in the card. I was imagining the story of a fire burning its way across an area, destroying everything, and then this guardian of nature coming through after, life blossoming from the ashes where it steps, returning some of the destroyed nature via the recursion, and stimulating new growth through the card draw. I thought about adding types to the Hydra, but nothing really sold the flavor connection to me. Plant wasn't really what I was going for, Avatar/Elemental felt like it didn't inform the card any more than just plain Hydra, etc. Just wondering, given that goal, do you guys have any ideas what I could have done to convey that more clearly, either via name or typing?

Also, to bravelion specifically, sorry for skirting the rules on subchallenge 2. I've always been a letter of the law/rules as written kind of guy, so it was my first thought upon seeing the subchallenge, and the intent behind it never even crossed my mind. Had it crossed my mind that there was a gap between the challenge's mechanics and intent, I would have definitely clarified beforehand, but it never even registered as problematic to me.

Lastly, void_nothing, while subtractions for the length were so absolutely justified, I wanted to know what the bar is for the full 0/3 from you. The adventure is only 18% longer than the longest printed adventure (186 chars vs 157 in the new Kellan from the new Ixalan), and the creature 37% (273 vs 199, also the new Kellan), for a total overage of 28%. This is absolutely worth penalization, as are most of my card lengths, but getting 0/3 was a bit confusing to me, as it seems significantly more punitive than the average overage penalties I've gotten in the past. This doesn't effect the results in any way, I just wanted some clarification.

[bravelion83]

do you guys have any ideas what I could have done to convey that more clearly, either via name or typing?

So the fire is independent and happens first, then this being comes and restores the nature that was destroyed. It makes perfect sense as a story, and now I can see why your card is the way that it is, but I'm not sure an adventurer card is the best way to tell it. You need something representing two events that do not have a connection of cause and effect, rather one of sequentiality, the first event happens, then the second one independently happens and interacts with the results of the first event. What comes to my mind is a transforming DFC with the fire on its front face and the restorer of nature, whatever creature types you want to give it (I don't think it's that relevant for this issue), on the back face. You cast the front face (aka the fire happens), it goes to the graveyard as it's a sorcery, then there is some condition, possibly related to the damage the sorcery did, that allows you to cast the back face transformed or return it from your graveyard to the battlefield transformed. When the back face enters the battlefield, its own ETB triggers and does its thing, returning permanents with low mana value to the battlefield and letting you draw based on the number of lands you returned this way, or something like that. I think it might be a problem with how you choose to tell the story rather than with the story itself. The story itself feels good to me, it's just that an adventurer card isn't the best way to tell it.

Had it crossed my mind that there was a gap between the challenge's mechanics and intent, I would have definitely clarified beforehand, but it never even registered as problematic to me.

I wouldn't call it a "problem" or "problematic". You did what the challenge asked, just in a way that, to use a strong word, almost felt like cheating to me, the creator of the challenges. It's not actual cheating, I'm just using that word for clarity, and I apologize for how strong that word is, but I hope that by using it I can better explain how the way in which you did it, which was absolutely fair game as far as the letter of the challenge is concerned, made me feel as the creator of the challenge. That was not the way I intended, and somebody tricked me. It's not your fault, you did what was asked by the challenge, even though in a way I didn't even think about. It's my own fault, I should have worded that Subchallenge in a different way to be clearer and better reflect my own intent behind it.

It's exactly the act of judging your card that made me rewrite part of the challenges for the final round, which I had promised in a few hours yesterday and then I fell asleep without remembering it. I'll post it right now. Thanks for (probably unintentionally) reminding me, and I hope to see you again next month. I'll let @void_nothing himself reply to the part directed to him if he wishes to do so.


EDIT - The final round for March is now up. Best of luck to the finalists! Let's see your own stories now!

[void_nothing]

I may have been overly harsh in giving a 0/3 for elegance, but what I essentially saw were two cards with a couple of elements which added complexity and which probably each would have merited a 2/3 on their own, combined in a way that would at the very least strain the text size very severely. Unfortunately there's no quick way for me to check sizing on an Adventure frame, but there were several things for which I was marking off here.

[Ink-Treader]

Just under a day left to enter October MCC Round 1! We have a healthy amount of entries, but more is always welcome

[Ink-Treader]

And my October MCC Round 1 judgments are done. Even if I had gone more aggressive on cutting players as I had considered (top 5 advance), I'd still be advancing 7.

[Ink-Treader]

Just wanted to check in with you, @void_nothing regarding Round 1 judgments. If I need to, I can judge your bracket as well if you have a lot going on.

[void_nothing]

Just wanted to check in with you, @void_nothing regarding Round 1 judgments. If I need to, I can judge your bracket as well if you have a lot going on.

Oop, sorry for the delay. Working on this tonight.

Edit: Planning to have them all finalized tomorrow afternoon.

[bravelion83]

There are also the judgments for the final round of September to take care of. Mine should probably be ready tonight or at the worst tomorrow. @void_nothing I'm fine with you thinking about October Round 1 first, but when you're done with those, please don't forget these!

EDIT - My own judgments for the final round of September are complete. As soon as void_nothing posts his own ones, we will have a winner for September.

[slimytrout]

I think the intent here was for those creatures to get the bonus, but that's not what happens.

Just for the record, that definitely was not the intent. For one thing, it wouldn't matter much whether the creatures get the bonus unless they have haste, and for another thing I thought it was fairly clear that because the saga needed to count the exiled cards, those cards had to still be in exile when the trigger resolved. In fact, I looked up the exact part of the CR you are referencing to make sure that the cards wouldn't leave exile before the trigger resolved in order to make sure that X wouldn't be automatically equal to 0.