The MCC Discussion Thread

[Subject16]

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)

Would something like "craft with a historic permanent" fall under this category? Or does historic being intrinsically tied to types/subtypes/supertypes (one of which being specifically artifacts) make it incompatible with the subchallenge?

[bravelion83]

My judgments for January Round 1 are complete. This was not a good round in my opinion from a card design standpoint. I won't repeat it all here, just please read the note I've left at the top of my judgment post.

Also this @Subject16:

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)

Would something like "craft with a historic permanent" fall under this category? Or does historic being intrinsically tied to types/subtypes/supertypes (one of which being specifically artifacts) make it incompatible with the subchallenge?

The latter, "historic" is just a shorthand for a batch of things that are found on the type line, so it counts as "a restriction based on card types", that means one that does NOT count for Subchallenge 1. If you're doing anything based on things found on the type line, then Subchallenge 1 isn't met. You have to care about things other than what is found on the type line.

[Komandon]

@bravelion83 not a request for any score changing just questions for future reference.

Should I avoid reminder text on established keyword abilities and evergreen. Such as not just Vanishing but is say older ones such as Flanking, Mentor, Threshold, etc. since as I can see the rest of the text now is too much and doesn't change that problem, if it's too distracting.

Second , in main challenge part. You mention it's similarly to storm. I didn't know storm existed on any permanent. Found one now Aeve, Progenitor Ooze [/card] except Storm is only that turn. To be honest I was thinking of the card The Fallen when I first saw the challenge though that card has been errata. Is your criticism saying it's too much like storm or is the same as Storm?

(I apologize. English is my first language. I have a reason I have difficulty. Just don't want to make that an excuse. I recognize that even this reply may be confusing. I just can't tell honestly.)


Third. Not a question. An understanding now. I didn't realize it having that much text (minus reminder text) wouldn't be common. Just e re member back at sets I'm more familiar with which predate the indicators of rarity. I see how for normally three or more lines or sentences normally it's keywords such as cycling, flash, kicker, etc. I apologize again.
I need to do more due diligence in the future.

[Ryder]

January Round 2 is up, we're ahead of schedule so you get an extra day for design!

[bravelion83]

Should I avoid reminder text on established keyword abilities and evergreen. Such as not just Vanishing but is say older ones such as Flanking, Mentor, Threshold, etc. (...)

It's not a matter of how "established" a keyword is, it's that there are editing principles about reminder text. The unwritten rule ("unwritten" in the sense that it's not in the CR as it's not a gameplay rule) is this: a non-evergreen keyword must always have reminder text, except in the only case of a rare or mythic that has no room for it. That's the whole thing.

You can omit the reminder text only in two very specific cases:

1. The keyword is evergreen, regardless of the rarity of the card. Please notice though that what's evergreen may change over time, what matters is what's currently evergreen in the moment the round is happening. For example, fear was evergreen once but now not anymore, so if you were to design a card with fear for a round that happens right now, you would have to include reminder text for it.

2. The card is a rare or mythic AND it's not microtext if you omit reminder text but it becomes microtext if you include reminder text. You can ONLY do this at rare or mythic. You can NEVER omit reminder text for a non-evergreen keyword on a common or uncommon. If a common of uncommon is microtext, you can't remove reminder text to make it not microtext, rather you have to reword the rest of the card such that it has reminder text but it's no longer microtext.

Those are literally the only two cases in which you're allowed to omit reminder text.

Second , in main challenge part. You mention it's similarly to storm. I didn't know storm existed on any permanent.

Yes, the CR allow any spell to have storm, it's not forbidden for a permanent spell to have it, and it's also not required that the card with storm is an instant or sorcery. For reference:

702.40a Storm is a triggered ability that functions on the stack. "Storm" means "When you cast this spell, copy it for each other spell that was cast before it this turn. If the spell has any targets, you may choose new targets for any of the copies."

It says "when you cast this spell", any spell, of any card type. It doesn't specify any card types in the definition of the keyword, so it works for literally any spell. Any spell, of any card type, permanent or not, can have storm. You point out yourself the example of Aeve, Progenitor Ooze.

Is your criticism saying it's too much like storm or is the same as Storm?

The former. I mean it's too similar to storm. It's not the same, but it works in a very similar way. The only real difference is that it checks the whole game and not just this turn, which by the way causes memory issues but that's a different matter.

(I apologize. English is my first language. I have a reason I have difficulty. Just don't want to make that an excuse. I recognize that even this reply may be confusing. I just can't tell honestly.)

This reply is not confusing, don't worry about that. I can understand it perfectly. I think I know what that reason is and what difficulty you're talking about here, now that you've mentioned it I do remember it. You told me via pm a long time ago, to which I replied that I also have my own issues and maybe we're not actually that far, even though they're slightly different things, and I also explicitly told you exactly what I'm talking about when I say I have my own issues too. I don't know if you remember that exchange, I did not before reading this part, but now I clearly do. I remembered there was someone who told me about having that kind of difficulty, but I didn't remember it was you. I'm sorry for not remembering it was you.

Third. Not a question. An understanding now. I didn't realize it having that much text (minus reminder text) wouldn't be common. Just e re member back at sets I'm more familiar with which predate the indicators of rarity. I see how for normally three or more lines or sentences normally it's keywords such as cycling, flash, kicker, etc. I apologize again.

No problem. It's actually four lines and not three if I remember correctly. It's not a problem about the indication of rarity, it's specifically for commons. At Wizards they called this new philosophy for commons "New World Order" (NWO for short). You should check Mark Rosewater's article about it if you're not aware of it. I think this is a must to read for any person interested in Magic card design, especially the part where it explains the three different kinds of complexity in Magic, but all the article honestly. If I remember correctly, NWO originated from the high tracking complexity of Lorwyn limited, and it's still valid today.

Beware of another article called "New New World Order" though, that was just an April's Fools joke and that's not actually a real thing. You should just ignore it completely. I'm not linking that joke article here exactly to avoid any confusion with the actual one, which is the one I linked here.

Hope this helps.

EDIT - This is also another very interesting article by Mark Rosewater about how the design constraints are different for each rarity including common. There are also episodes of his Drive to Work podcast about that, like these two: #133 - Designing commons, and #144 - Redflagging. There are probably even more articles and podcasts but these are the ones I've found right now.

[Komandon]

@bravelion83 thank you for the clarification and links. I bookmarked the two blogs and two audios of him to review later.

[Ryder]

A kind request to all MCC contestants:
If you know before the deadline that you won't make any more changes to your submission, please add "FINAL" at the bottom of the post. Alternatively, if you don't want to declare it publicly, PM the host.
It's so we can start judging earlier

EDIT: This will not be binding and you will still be able to change your card before submission.
Also, this obviously will not count as "additional content" that is forbidden by the MCC rules.

[bravelion83]

Just for clarification purposes:

before submission.

What this actually means is "before the design deadline". You still have until the design deadline to edit your card as usual. We're not putting additional hurry on you. What Ryder is asking for here is a totally optional indication so that we judges can already start thinking about our judgments beforehand and start forming an idea of our judgment of the card, knowing it probably won't change, so that when we get to the actual judging phase we already have some thoughts about the card and we can make our judgments faster because we don't have to think about them from scratch. That's all.

Also, this obviously will not count as "additional content" that is forbidden by the MCC rules.

And this is a special exception to the extra content rule. It only counts to say you're done with your design. That's the only things that you're allowed to add to the text card in your submission post. Things like design notes, flavor explanations, art descriptions, etc... are still forbidden and still count as extra content, which I remind everybody is a cause of DQ.

As a personal note, in our talks behind the scenes I can see Ryder is very determined in making the January MCC actually end at the end of the month. This is a good thing and I like it a lot, also because that's how it should technically be every month. I've tried several times since the very beginning of this site and I've failed every time. I fully support Ryder's intention here. Let's see if this time we can actually do it, and if we can it will stay as a precedent, one that we will be able to refer to in the future and say "Hey, it's actually possible to finish an MCC month within the month! Remember that time when we did it? Let's do it again!" And then again and again until it becomes what's actually supposed to be: the normality, to use a word that in my family we're using a lot since my father's recent death. The three of us left want to find again each their own normality, and here in the MCC too we can find again our normality. All is takes is both players and judges respecting the deadlines. Yes, as I always say real life always comes first (see for example the delay in the December MCC, which I am hosting, due to my father's unforeseen death), but those deadlines are set for a reason, and if we all, players and judges, do our jobs properly, it will be possible. And Ryder and I are ready and determined to prove it.

[haywire]

I will say, I don't know if this is me being over-competitive, but it feels like the subchallenges this month that are relative to other players encourage posting at the last minute. Not so much the rarity one in the previous challenge since that was a hard bar at common, but with MV, it feels like I would be putting myself at a disadvantage if I don't wait until tomorrow evening to see what the highest MV is and decide if I can tweak my design to beat that without compromising the card. Again, I'm a famously over-competitive person, so this could just be a me thing, but I wanted to put out my thoughts on this type of subchallenge, since I believe it's a new style to the MCC, at least from what I remember.

[Raptorchan]

I kinda agree. BTW, in this particular round, trying to get the highest mana cost of a Lesson can lead to ridiculous results that can cost you more points than you earn for satisfying the subchallenge. Although, still, the subchallenges based on others' submissions feel kinda unfair. I think that cards are better be designed in a vacuum so ideas and choices of other players won't affect your design.

[Ryder]

Thanks for the feedback @haywire and @Raptorchan, I expected this.

You're by all means allowed to post at the last minute, however are you really going to design your cards in the last few hours or even minutes? Or are your designs flexible enough to easily add one or two mana to its cost? Or do you simply wait not to give others ideas? These questions are purely rhetorical.

I simply believe this gives MCC a new unexplored dynamic and I'm curious to see how it affects your submissions ^^

cards are better be designed in a vacuum

This is where our opinions differ.

[OneAndOnly]

I think it's less that the criteria allow a player to wait til the last minute to re-consider their design, but that the criteria force a player to do so, if they want to be competitive. Normally the criteria are generous enough that more than one player can satisfy the criteria and so gain the points. By making it a situation in which only one player can get the point, you actually make it a two-point swing (one for gaining the point, a second because the other player's didn't). In a contest with a maximum of 18 points, that's nearly a 10% difference -- huge!

Really, I wish all these secondary criteria were simply that -- secondary, and literally just style points for accomplishing them. Instead, they are very much mandatory components of the design. They might as well be listed as principle criteria.

[haywire]

The point of my initial comment was not to say "this is bad, never do this", more just that it incentivizes waiting. Even if my submission isn't the highest MV, if I were to post it now, others would know that and be able to design around it. As long as I don't post it, anybody doing design will have to estimate and guess at what mana value they could put to get the point, whereas whoever waits the longest posts with perfect information. It doesn't matter if my submission satisfies or fails the subchallenge, I gain an advantage as long as I haven't posted it yet by making everybody else design with uncertainty.

As far as actually designing my own card, it's easy enough to design a card at some mana value that I think will be high enough and still be a very cohesive card, and then have some additional text that I can add on there that justifies 1 or 2 more MV. Even if it results in a worse card, the calculation I have to make, as alluded to by @OneAndOnly, is if it's more or less than 2 points worse. If I think that the higher MV version of the card is 1.5 points worse, then it makes the most sense to use that one, even as a worse card, because it's still a net gain.

[bravelion83]

I believe it's a new style to the MCC, at least from what I remember.

Yes, it is. I also can't remember it being tried before in all the years I've been around here and Salvation before. I guess you can add that as well to the January tests, even though this is purely by Ryder. We've never talked about it beforehand and I do NOT know what future challenges are.

cards are better be designed in a vacuum

This is where our opinions differ.

Personally, I think I'm more on Raptorchan's side here. It all depends on what the card is being designed for. If it's a (both custom and real) set, then by all means it needs to depend on what other cards are in the set. But here it's designed for a contest. In a contest, having the entries being designed indipendently from one another might actually be better. Anyway, this is also a reason to have a rotation of hosts: each person has their own opinions, ideas, and style of challenges, and in this case, variance is a good thing for the contest as a whole in my opinion.

Really, I wish all these secondary criteria were simply that -- secondary, and literally just style points for accomplishing them. Instead, they are very much mandatory components of the design. They might as well be listed as principle criteria.

More than style points, Subchallenges are meant to be additional obstacles for you to overcome and get additional points, and should not be automatic. It should be hard to design a submission that hits all the challenges, but not nigh impossible. They are not meant to be mandatory, it's just that players instictively read the Main Challenge and the Subchallenges as a single thing where everything is to be met. It's not like that. Only the Main Challenge must be met, and if you give it up it's a DQ. You can instead give up the Subchallenges with no risk of DQ, and at the contrary, sometimes it can even be the correct strategic choice. That's why Main Challenge and Subchallenges are different things. It's just your feeling that Subchallenges are mandatory. In an ideal MCC world, you're not supposed to feel like that.

EDIT - I wanted to also reply to this but I forgot:

In a contest with a maximum of 18 points

In the MCC, the maximum is 25 points, not 18. The Polish section matters too, if those are the 7 points you didn't count.

[Ryder]

For the MCC to be completely fair and truły competitive, it would have to feature blind submissions via PMs. As-is, if you post early, you give your opponents design ideas anyway.

[bravelion83]

For the MCC to be completely fair and truły competitive, it would have to feature blind submissions via PMs. As-is, if you post early, you give your opponents design ideas anyway.

I can say that as a player I always post early not to forget later, and I've never had problems with giving other people ideas except maybe for once or twice in the many years I've been involved with the MCC. That doesn't mean it's not a potential problem, I'm just saying I've almost never seen it become an actual problem in practice, at least in my own experience as a player. Obviously doing it by PM is just absurd and an hyperbole, but I feel like the problem is being overestimated here.

[Ryder]

For the MCC to be completely fair and truły competitive, it would have to feature blind submissions via PMs. As-is, if you post early, you give your opponents design ideas anyway.

I can say that as a player I always post early not to forget later, and I've never had problems with giving other people ideas except maybe for once or twice in the many years I've been involved with the MCC. That doesn't mean it's not a potential problem, I'm just saying I've almost never seen it become an actual problem in practice, at least in my own experience as a player. Obviously doing it by PM is just absurd and an hyperbole, but I feel like the problem is being overestimated here.

It's not usually a problem because the challenges are generally quite broad and the design space is vast to the point of the challenge not being a challenge, but a theme rather. But this month I'm already seeing patterns emerging.

[bravelion83]

I like broad challenges with vast design space for Round 1, to invite more players to join. Then, in my ideal MCC world, the difficulty increases from one round to the next one, with the challenges getting more and more restrictive and with less and less design space, until the final round, that has the most restrictive and narrow challenges of the month. And by making me focus on this you gave me an idea for the final round for December... I've just rewritten the Main Challenge to be way more restrictive and I've slightly modified the Subchallenges trying a thing that I can't remember having ever been tried before, by me for sure. It will be very difficult to do everything, and if you try to do everything anyway, that will probably result in a card that has problems in multiple areas... We'll see how it goes.

Also, @haywire: post as late as you want but do remember to post before the design deadline tonight (in about 15 hours from me writing this). @MonoRedMage is the only other missing player in January Round 2 at the moment.

[haywire]

Also, @haywire: post as late as you want but do remember to post before the design deadline tonight (in about 15 hours from me writing this)

I will admit, I was not intending to post at the literal last minute, but today got away from me (was informed out of nowhere my job is moving me across the country in less than a week). That is, I suppose, the risk of waiting to post until the end, and I got it in under the wire so I guess it works out.

[bravelion83]

My judgments for December Round 3 are complete. Waiting for @void_nothing's ones to progress to the final round. Tonight I'll start those of January Round 2.

[Komandon]

Am I allow to in the future ask for clarification on another player's ruling?
Either her or DM. I mean by future as after results are set in stone. I don't want my motive to look like trying to change the results. This relates to past months too that confuses me. Wish I wrote them down.

[slimytrout]

In general you should ask by DM to avoid rubbing people the wrong way. If it's about me (I say only because I'm matched up against you in the December MCC R3), then you should feel free to ask here and I promise I won't be offended. But yes, you should generally wait until after the judging is complete if your motivation is just curiosity.

[bravelion83]

Am I allow to in the future ask for clarification on another player's ruling?
Either her or DM. I mean by future as after results are set in stone. I don't want my motive to look like trying to change the results. This relates to past months too that confuses me. Wish I wrote them down.

You are always allowed to ask that at any moment in the judging process, but please do so via pm to the specific judge (even if it's me) and NOT here in this thread. That's in the best interest of everyone involved and if I remember correctly there is a similar FAQ at the end of the guidelines document, basically giving this same answer.

The best time to do this is between the moment when the judge first posts their judgments (I always give notice here though that's not technically required but I think it helps the players know when I'm done) and the judging deadline. This is especially important in a month like January, where both Ryder and I are actually trying to hit the deadlines early if we can. One of the reasons is exactly this: to allow players one day to ask for clarifications, give feedback, or say whatever they want to say before the judgments are final and locked in (that technically only happens at the moment of the judging deadline, the judge can change their judgments however they wish and for any reason before the judging deadline but not after that has passed).

The guideline here is this: if it's a matter exclusively involving yourself and the judge, you can do it here. If there are any third parties involved in any way, then please do it via pm to the judge.

Hope this helps.

Expect my judgments for January Round 2 to be finished later today.
EDIT - They are done. I'm intentionally allowing one day before the judging deadline for eventual questions or clarifications about them. Remember judgments are final only in the moment of the judging deadline. I've also seen void_nothing's judgments for December Round 3. Final round for December to come (finally) in a short time.

EDIT - The final round for December is up. Enjoy the mental overload of having to deal with too many different things at once! Also, I'm trying something new with Subchallenges. That's meant to be only for this specific round, but if people like it, who knows? It might come back in the future. It's not part of our January test, it was already planned, but if you want you can also see that as an experiment. Again, it's meant to be just a twist for this round.

[Komandon]

Thank you. I will try to write them down and DM in the future. I wish I remembered the ones over the months that confused me.

I'm glad I'm allow to prior to the finals because in the past I would think to wait in fear of effecting the outcome (which I have an odd sense of mortality so even if I'm involved I don't feel it's right if it affects me in a positive way in the score. I need to get over that. Not just here but life in general)

I have a question that is related to CLL too. If I was to say wait a month. In maybe the general card creation area viewforum.php?f=12 post my reasoning for a odd card I made for a contest. Waiting say a month so not to effect anything current (nor really the future. Just my sake) Just a to get feedback if my logic or reasoning is sound.

[Raptorchan]

@bravelion83: since all players in your bracket got 1/2 points in Main Challenge in January Round 2, I am curious: was there a way to earn 2/2? If so, how, what card must have been designed to get higher score?