The MCC Discussion Thread

[Ryder]

January Round 1 is up. If anybody feels like judging this month, that'd be great. There will be some additional guidelines, to spice things up.

Additionally, There will be no extensions this month. We are getting back on track. January MCC ends in January.

[haywire]

@Ryder just to make sure I'm clear, as I haven't participated in an MCC with the use of terms/wordings without much precedence, we still have to adhere to existing standards, correct? i.e. we couldn't say "during the previous turn" since the existing standard for that is "during the last turn", and we couldn't say "the number of times you've previously done X" since the standard for that is "the number of times you've done X this game", we have to find some effect that is either based on one of the 2 cards with "previous/previously" or find something entirely new that doesn't conflict with an existing standard/synonym?

[Ryder]

@Ryder just to make sure I'm clear, as I haven't participated in an MCC with the use of terms/wordings without much precedence, we still have to adhere to existing standards, correct? i.e. we couldn't say "during the previous turn" since the existing standard for that is "during the last turn", and we couldn't say "the number of times you've previously done X" since the standard for that is "the number of times you've done X this game", we have to find some effect that is either based on one of the 2 cards with "previous/previously" or find something entirely new that doesn't conflict with an existing standard/synonym?

That is correct. You can't change already established phrases.

[bravelion83]

Additionally, There will be no extensions this month. We are getting back on track. January MCC ends in January.

I wish. I've tried so many times and I've never managed to do it. I wanted to try again in December but other things caught my attention as you can easily imagine if you've followed my recent posts around here... As I had promised you here not too long ago, when you said "let's give void a break", I'm available to judge and I've just posted in the judge signup thread. Given my experience in recent months I hosted, I wish you the best of luck with this intention. I'm not being sarcastic, I really would like to see it happen. And as you know, if you need any help, you can count on me. You know where to find me.

@Ryder just to make sure I'm clear, as I haven't participated in an MCC with the use of terms/wordings without much precedence, we still have to adhere to existing standards, correct? i.e. we couldn't say "during the previous turn" since the existing standard for that is "during the last turn", and we couldn't say "the number of times you've previously done X" since the standard for that is "the number of times you've done X this game", we have to find some effect that is either based on one of the 2 cards with "previous/previously" or find something entirely new that doesn't conflict with an existing standard/synonym?

That is correct. You can't change already established phrases.

As author of the guidelines document and one of the most experienced people with the MCC, I confirm that Ryder is correct. You can't adjust the wording as you please to include the required words. They have to fit naturally into the correct and most recent templating for whatever effect you want to make.

[OneAndOnly]

So, I want to be sure I understand correctly; of the three cards with the correct template, one is silver-bordered, one is banned in a majority of formats, and one is from a set released nearly 30 years ago, whose wording would *probably* fall under the "would be phrased differently" if released today?

[Ink-Treader]

So, I want to be sure I understand correctly; of the three cards with the correct template, one is silver-bordered, one is banned in a majority of formats, and one is from a set released nearly 30 years ago, whose wording would *probably* fall under the "would be phrased differently" if released today?

"previous/previously" looks like a way to refer to something that occurred before at a nonspecific period of time, as used in what examples of syntax we have. That makes it rare for a reason, since it is strongly preferred not to refer to something that's tricky to track. Liesa uses it with something the players have to track already.

[bravelion83]

So, I want to be sure I understand correctly; of the three cards with the correct template, one is silver-bordered, one is banned in a majority of formats, and one is from a set released nearly 30 years ago, whose wording would *probably* fall under the "would be phrased differently" if released today?

I see no problems with Liesa or Diseased Vermin, just remember to always look at the Oracle text and not the printed one. At the contrary, I, as a judge, would not accept Bureaucracy, but not because of whether it would use the word "previous" if printed today, rather because it's silver border/acorn, and unless specified by the round challenges, we always assume we're working in black border, aka under the current CR. Silver border/acorn cards can essentially do whatever they want with wording and templating and they are explicitly not covered in the CR, so those do not count unless the challenges specifically ask for one of those, and that's not the case here.

For the record, I do have a couple ideas for working templates, so it's definitely possible to do, but obviously I'm not sharing what I have in mind at this time as I'm a judge. Also, remember that you can come up with new wording if the effect has no real printed precedent. In those cases, what matters is whether your proposed wording sounds plausible enough to see on a real Magic card. This is indeed a round that highly rewards creativity, in effects and wording too, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.

[Ryder]

For the record, precisely what Leo said.

[Raptorchan]

Well, I have an idea what to do with word "previously", just hope we won't get points deduced for creating memory issues.

[Ryder]

Well, I have an idea what to do with word "previously", just hope we won't get points deduced for creating memory issues.

You absolutely will if the memory issues are real, good luck!

[bravelion83]

Well, I have an idea what to do with word "previously", just hope we won't get points deduced for creating memory issues.

You absolutely will if the memory issues are real, good luck!

Indeed. I just wanted to add that the eventual deductions for memory issues would not be in the Main Challenge section of the rubric but in other areas: for sure in Elegance, and maybe Viability and Balance too.

EDIT - My judgments for December Round 2 are complete. Sorry for the delay, but if you followed my recent posts you should know what I had to deal with in real life, and I still have things left to do about that. Anyway, as soon as @void_nothing posts his own judgments, the contest will move on to Round 3.

[haywire]

Does reminder text count as rules text? For example, if I made a new keyword "Regret" with the reminder text "If you've previously cast a spell with the same name as this one, it costs an additional 2 life to cast." would that satisfy the main challenge? (the ability is not what I'm actually thinking of using, just a trivial example, so don't pay any heed to the other issues with it)

[Ryder]

Does reminder text count as rules text? For example, if I made a new keyword "Regret" with the reminder text "If you've previously cast a spell with the same name as this one, it costs an additional 2 life to cast." would that satisfy the main challenge? (the ability is not what I'm actually thinking of using, just a trivial example, so don't pay any heed to the other issues with it)

Yes, reminder text of a new mechanic qualifies just fine

[bravelion83]

Does reminder text count as rules text? For example, if I made a new keyword "Regret" with the reminder text "If you've previously cast a spell with the same name as this one, it costs an additional 2 life to cast." would that satisfy the main challenge? (the ability is not what I'm actually thinking of using, just a trivial example, so don't pay any heed to the other issues with it)

Does reminder text count as rules text? For example, if I made a new keyword "Regret" with the reminder text "If you've previously cast a spell with the same name as this one, it costs an additional 2 life to cast." would that satisfy the main challenge? (the ability is not what I'm actually thinking of using, just a trivial example, so don't pay any heed to the other issues with it)

Yes, reminder text of a new mechanic qualifies just fine

Just wanted to mention that technically reminder text is NOT rules text. There are three different things in the text box of a card: rules text, which is the only one who has rules relevance, reminder text, and flavor text. I have no problems with accepting the required words in reminder text too, but that would require a correction to the Main Challenge at the end: "...in rules text or reminder text."

[Ryder]

Added to the Clarifications section.

Also, as agreed with my co-judge, there will be some minor experimental changes to how we judge cards this month.

Main Challenge scoring guidelines:
0.0/2: MC not met / letter of the challenge not met / DQ.
0.5/2: Spirit of the challenge not met (should only be the case if somebody ignores finer details in the Clarifications section).
1.0/2: Letter and spirit of the challenge are met.
1.5/2 and 2/2: Bonus for creative approach completely subject to the judge.

Additionally, in the 3rd round, the "versus round", pairings will be determined by scores accumulated in rounds 1 & 2. Contestants with the most points will be paired against those with the least points.

As mentioned above, these changes are experimental and we are looking to hearing your feedback after this month is done.

[bravelion83]

Added to the Clarifications section.

Also, as agreed with my co-judge, there will be some minor experimental changes to how we judge cards this month.

Main Challenge scoring guidelines:
0.0/2: MC not met / letter of the challenge not met / DQ.
0.5/2: Spirit of the challenge not met (should only be the case if somebody ignores finer details in the Clarifications section).
1.0/2: Letter and spirit of the challenge are met.
1.5/2 and 2/2: Bonus for creative approach completely subject to the judge.

Additionally, in the 3rd round, the "versus round", pairings will be determined by scores accumulated in rounds 1 & 2. Contestants with the most points will be paired against those with the least points.

As mentioned above, these changes are experimental and we are looking to hearing your feedback after this month is done.

Finally that is all public. Finally! You all had no idea how badly I wanted for this to be public, and now it finally is. The private exchange between me and Ryder about this has gone on for days, with each one of us replying to the other multiple times each day, so it's not like this is being done without any reasoning, just out of nothing. Ryder has been the one to propose to try these changes to me, one of the most experienced person with the MCC (the other being void_nothing himself, but I think me and void are the two most experienced people in this contest by far) and author of the guidelines document, and we have discussed in depth all the implications that we could possibly think of, exchanging our reciprocal worries and fears and adjusting things accordingly. This doesn't come out of thin air, but it has been talked and thought about a lot behind the scenes in the last few days.

This is just a test for January, nothing has officially changed in the MCC rules or in the guidelines document yet.

For the record, this is the correct way to act for anyone that might like some changes to the MCC rules to be considered: propose them and discuss them in depth (this part is usually public in this very thread, and I still think it's better for it to be public, but in this case that has been done even if privately), test them for a month, get feedback, discuss both how the test went and the feedback received (again, it would be the best if this was also done publicly here in this thread), then maybe test it again with eventual adjustments, and iterate this process until we reach a point where most people feel good. At that point, the change can be officially adopted for the future indefinitely and become the new default, but only then, not before the whole process has ended and never without a proper discussion. It would be better if that discussion is public from the start, but even a private discussion with the most experienced people in the contest is still better than nothing.

As a separate note, but this is only related to me personally as a judge (and I will mention it again at the beginning of all of my judging posts in January), I'm going to try a new way to judge the Uniqueness area of the rubric, starting with a default of 1.5 and going above or below it as needed. It will be harder to get a 3/3 in that area, but it allows me as a judge to prize more the cards that really deserve it. I'm going to see how I feel about this, and if I feel good about it, I don't exclude to apply a similar system in other areas too, just maybe with a slightly higher default. For now, I'll try this new approach only in Uniqueness on January, continuing to judge as I've always done in other areas for now, except the Main Challenge section of course, where I will apply Ryder's scoretable in the post right above this one.

Now you know everything you need to know about how the January MCC will be managed. Those two things (the scoring in Main Challenge and how the Round 3 parings are made) are the ONLY things that are being tested in January. All the rest will be as usual, don't worry about that.

Midnight CEST EDIT - I just saw void's judgments for December Round 2, but now I need to go to bed. Today has been a very important day for me, the day I refound a friend lost to time, and to both of us it felt like we have never actually lost sight of each other. The road to my return to paper Magic for MKM has begun. I chose to take that road and see where it will lead me. I don't know yet, but I can't wait to find out. December Round 3 will come tomorrow as soon as I possibly can after I wake up.

[Ryder]

January Round 1 design deadline is tomorrow, pinging people from December, come and play if you like
@kwanyeegor-ii
@shullz
@haywire
@Subject16
@slimytrout

[bravelion83]

December Round 3 is up. I've decided we're going to try the Round 3 pairings change from the posts right above this one already, but only that specific one. All the rest does NOT apply in December rounds yet.

[Raptorchan]

@bravelion83
"Subchallenge 1 - The craft materials canNOT include artifacts. (This forbids not just "craft with artifact" but anything that might include an artifact as part of the materials, like for example "craft with a permanent".)"

I'd like to clarify something. If "craft with a permanent" doesn't satisfy the subchallenge because it can include artifact, the same is true for "craft with one or more nonlands", "craft with creature", "craft with land" and even "craft with enchantment", because artifact creatures/lands/enchantments also exist, right?

[bravelion83]

@bravelion83
"Subchallenge 1 - The craft materials canNOT include artifacts. (This forbids not just "craft with artifact" but anything that might include an artifact as part of the materials, like for example "craft with a permanent".)"

I'd like to clarify something. If "craft with a permanent" doesn't satisfy the subchallenge because it can include artifact, the same is true for "craft with one or more nonlands", "craft with creature", "craft with land" and even "craft with enchantment", because artifact creatures/lands/enchantments also exist, right?

Correct, but that matters only for restrictions based on card types. If the restriction is based on something other than card types, then it's allowed, like for example:
• "craft with a card with mana value 3 or greater" (even if there are existing artifacts with such mana value, but what matters is the mana value and not it being an artifact)
• "craft with one or more red cards" (even if there are existing red artifacts, but again, what matters here is the color, not the artifact card type)

Even restriction based on card types are allowed if they can't possibly include an artifact considering only real Magic cards, like the following:
• "craft with planeswalker" (there are no existing planeswalkers that have the artifact card type in addition to the planeswalker one)
• "craft with Aura" (as far as I know there are no existing "Artifact Enchantment — Aura")
• "craft with Saproling" (there are no existing "Artifact Creature — Saproling", neither card nor token)
• "craft with Squirrel" (there are no existing "Artifact Creature — Squirrel" in black border, again, as far as I know, the only one is Steel Squirrel but it's silver border so it doesn't count)

I still have to write the clarifications spoiler, sorry about that, but this post goes straight into it.

[Ryder]

My judgements for the January Round 1 are in.

[bravelion83]

My judgements for the January Round 1 are in.

Already? Good job! I've just written you a pm about mine. I'm at a very good point, but I still have work left and I need to go to bed now. Tomorrow will be a very busy day for me, I already know it, so I'm not sure I'll find the time to go on, but I'm confident I will finish within the judging deadline on Tuesday at worst.

[Komandon]

I thought I read on it craft with challenge. That it can't be a creature for one of the DFC faces. Not just the card you crafts can't be artifacts. Was it removed. I'm sorry my memory is getting worse.

[bravelion83]

I thought I read on it craft with challenge. That it can't be a creature for one of the DFC faces. Not just the card you crafts can't be artifacts. Was it removed. I'm sorry my memory is getting worse.

I'm sorry but I can't understand the question here. There is no problem with one or both faces being an artifact and/or creature. That Subchallenge only cares about what you're using to craft, not the characteristics of either face. I hope to have involuntarily answered this way, but if that's not the answer, could you please reformulate your question? Thanks.

[Komandon]

Thank you. That is the answer. I was confused since I thought it use to have that restriction and now I didn't see it. Maybe I mistook it for an older challenge.