The MCC Discussion Thread

[Ryder]

@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?

I'll answer that. For me, I hoped to see a permanent Lesson.

[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?

I'll answer that. For me, I hoped to see a permanent Lesson.

That's directly against the rules, Lesson is an instant/sorcery subtype:

205.3k Instants and sorceries share their lists of subtypes; these subtypes are called spell types. The spell types are Adventure, Arcane, Lesson, and Trap.

[Ryder]

@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?

I'll answer that. For me, I hoped to see a permanent Lesson.

That's directly against the rules, Lesson is an instant/sorcery subtype:

205.3k Instants and sorceries share their lists of subtypes; these subtypes are called spell types. The spell types are Adventure, Arcane, Lesson, and Trap.

1. You got it reversed: Instants and Sorceries can be Lessons. This doesn't say Lesson's can't be Enchantments for example.
2. Even if there is a rule that specifies what Lessons are, they only represent the current state of Magic. Cards we design can change the rules, we only need to make sure our cards are understandable. Nobody has a printed CR on their gaming table
3. As an example, for Zendikar Rising MaRo designed permanent Traps (and they were awesome), but Erik Lauer didn't like them so they were ditched.

My judgements for January Round 2 are up.

[bravelion83]

@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?

I don't think so. A binary MC like this is either met or not met, even if you make a creative card that's prized in Uniqueness, MC is about the creativity in the approach to the challenge, not in the resulting card. Notice that Ryder also gave everybody in the other bracket 1/2 in MC. I think we've discovered a weakness of the system that's being tested: it doesn't work that well for binary MCs. It can work with open-ended MCs (see January Round 1), but for binary MCs the old system was better. I guess it depends on the nature of the MC which one is better. I'd be very curious to know if @Ryder himself can come up with an example of a card that could have gotten 2/2 in MC in Round 2.

[Raptorchan]

Well, making a permanent Lesson (even if possible) is not something I would think about outside of "making something just for the sake of proving you can do that" (which MaRo deems as rather bad than good intention). Honestly I would more likely aim for something that can actually be printed by WotC with a chance higher than 10%. Guess full creativity isn't for me

[Ryder]

@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?

I don't think so. A binary MC like this is either met or not met, even if you make a creative card that's prized in Uniqueness, MC is about the creativity in the approach to the challenge, not in the resulting card. Notice that Ryder also gave everybody in the other bracket 1/2 in MC. I think we've discovered a weakness of the system that's being tested: it doesn't work that well for binary MCs. It can work with open-ended MCs (see January Round 1), but for binary MCs the old system was better. I guess it depends on the nature of the MC which one is better. I'd be very curious to know if @Ryder himself can come up with an example of a card that could have gotten 2/2 in MC in Round 2.

Challenge accepted!

Mending Class 1W
Enchantment — Lesson (U)
XW: Return target artifact card with mana value X from your graveyard to your hand.
At the beginning of your end step, sacrifice Mending Class unless you discard a card.
//
Shattering Class 1R
Enchantment — Lesson (U)
XR: Destroy target artifact with mana value X.
At the beginning of your end step, sacrifice Shattering Class unless you discard a card.

[slimytrout]

Mending Class 1W
Enchantment — Lesson (U)
XW: Return target artifact card with mana value X from your graveyard to your hand.
At the beginning of your end step, sacrifice Mending Class unless you discard a card.
//
Shattering Class 1R
Enchantment — Lesson (U)
XR: Destroy target artifact with mana value X.
At the beginning of your end step, sacrifice Shattering Class unless you discard a card.

I'm not participating this month so don't have any stake in this argument, but this card isn't possible, since other than instants and sorceries no two card types are allowed to share a single subtype. Even "Tribal Enchantment — Lesson" wouldn't work because Tribal is only allowed for creature subtypes.

Also, we haven't reached the end of the month yet so this is a bit premature, but I do think it's worth doing a poll once it's wrapped up to see how folks felt about each of the changes individually.

[void_nothing]

I'm not participating this month so don't have any stake in this argument, but this card isn't possible, since other than instants and sorceries no two card types are allowed to share a single subtype. Even "Tribal Enchantment — Lesson" wouldn't work because Tribal is only allowed for creature subtypes.

Yeah, that's just the thing - expecting a contestant to do something that's not actually allowable in the existing Magic rules in order to get full points is beyond the pale.

[Ryder]

I already explained my view on the existing rules.

expecting a contestant to do something that's not actually allowable in the existing Magic rules in order to get full points is beyond the pale.

Eh, previously everybody got 2/2 points 99,9% of the time. This round everyone got 1/2. All fair. I just left ourselves some room to reward exceptionally creative approaches.

The poll will be conducted once this month's MCC is concluded, which should be around 31st if we experience no delays.

Side note: Who is hosting February?

[Subject16]

I suppose that's the issue with the MC being worth 2 points in of itself. Is there really justification for that unless there's two clauses to meet?

Anyway, on to a question for the December MCC Finals

Main Challenge - Design a battle, enchantment, or planeswalker card that has an activated ability that directly causes a creature you control to explore.
(Here, "directly" means by saying explicitly "[creature] explores" and NOT by using an intermediate means like Map tokens for example. Those count for Subchallenge 2, here the "explore" keyword has to be on the card itself.)

By "causes a creature to explore" does this specifically mean one creature? Would a card that says "each creature you control explores" not meet the criteria?

[Ink-Treader]

I suppose that's the issue with the MC being worth 2 points in of itself. Is there really justification for that unless there's two clauses to meet?

Whenever I judged, I'd mostly consider knocking off a point if a card didn't meet the spirit of the challenge. Don't know if I've ever actually done so, since people usually ask for clarifications, removing the threat of that.

[bravelion83]

Anyway, on to a question for the December MCC Finals
bravelion83 wrote: ↑1 day ago
Main Challenge - Design a battle, enchantment, or planeswalker card that has an activated ability that directly causes a creature you control to explore.
(Here, "directly" means by saying explicitly "[creature] explores" and NOT by using an intermediate means like Map tokens for example. Those count for Subchallenge 2, here the "explore" keyword has to be on the card itself.)
By "causes a creature to explore" does this specifically mean one creature? Would a card that says "each creature you control explores" not meet the criteria?

At least one creature has to explore. Nothing prevents you to make a card that has multiple creature exploring, as long as it's a direct effect of the card and there is no intermediate means (such as Map tokens). "Each creature you control explores" does indeed pass the Main Challenge: there is at least one creature exploring as a direct effect of the card. As long as that's true for any wording you propose, the Main Challenge is met.

I suppose that's the issue with the MC being worth 2 points in of itself. Is there really justification for that unless there's two clauses to meet?

Whenever I judged, I'd mostly consider knocking off a point if a card didn't meet the spirit of the challenge. Don't know if I've ever actually done so, since people usually ask for clarifications, removing the threat of that.

I did the same exact thing, and I've done it multiple times. Not too often, but it has happened a few times to me.

The poll will be conducted once this month's MCC is concluded, which should be around 31st if we experience no delays.

I'd like separate polls, one for each specific change. At the very least two: one on the changes to the Main Challenge section and a separate one for the Round 3 pairings. As of now, my own vote would NOT be the same for both, and I can't think I'm the only person who likes one and dislikes the other. How is such a person supposed to vote if the poll is a single one? It should not be a generic "Did you like January changes?", but at the very least:
1. "Did you like the change to the way the Main Challenge is judged that has been tested in January?", and a completely separate one asking:
2. "Did you like the Round 3 pairings depending on the combined scores of the previous rounds, as tested in December and January?"

Also, the possible answers shouldn't just be yes/no, but possibly a range, something like this:
• Yes, I totally liked this change and would like it to become the new norm.
• Mostly yes, but with reservations.
• Indifferent, to me it's the same if we use either system.
• Mostly no, but it did expose faults of the previous system we need to examine further.
• No, I didn't like it at all and I would like to never see something like this tried ever again.

We gain much more info from something like this than a simple yes/no.

Side note: Who is hosting February?

Nobody, as far as I'm aware. I'm aiming to do the MKM month on March, and the debut yesterday gave me some vague ideas for that. Is @void_nothing aware of anybody already planned for hosting February?

Mending Class 1W
Enchantment — Lesson (U)
XW: Return target artifact card with mana value X from your graveyard to your hand.
At the beginning of your end step, sacrifice Mending Class unless you discard a card.
//
Shattering Class 1R
Enchantment — Lesson (U)
XR: Destroy target artifact with mana value X.
At the beginning of your end step, sacrifice Shattering Class unless you discard a card.

I'm not participating this month so don't have any stake in this argument, but this card isn't possible, since other than instants and sorceries no two card types are allowed to share a single subtype. Even "Tribal Enchantment — Lesson" wouldn't work because Tribal is only allowed for creature subtypes.

slimytrout is 100% correct here. The way to get full points shouldn't be to submit a card that directly goes against the CR as they are in the moment of submission. At the contrary, that should be penalized. What's to be prized is if you find a way to do is that doesn't go against the CR, or the most it would require would be just a slight adjustment, and not the rewriting from scratch of a whole section, like allowing card types to have subtypes belonging to a different card type would absolutely require. It's more or less the same reason they never made last strike in black border. You can work outside the box, just don't go too far out.

For this card specifically, you would need a new card type that shares its subtype list with instants and sorcery and does nothing on its own, exactly what Tribal/Kindred is for creature types, only for spell types. This is the reason Tribal/Kindred is a card type and not a supertype. Let's say you call this new card type Mystical, and you suppose what's now a minor rules change that we can assume and that it's realistic enough: "Mysticals, Instants, and Sorceries all share their list of subtypes. Those are called "spell types". The spell types are... (the same they actually are)" Then you could make this:

Mending Class 1W
Mystical Enchantment — Lesson (U)
XW: Return target artifact card with mana value X from your graveyard to your hand.
At the beginning of your end step, sacrifice Mending Class unless you discard a card.
//
Shattering Class 1R
Mystical Enchantment — Lesson (U)
XR: Destroy target artifact with mana value X.
At the beginning of your end step, sacrifice Shattering Class unless you discard a card.

where Lesson is a Mystical subtype. @Ryder Would the card adjusted like this still have been a 2/2 in MC in Round 2? After all, it's still a Lesson permanent if that was what you expected to see. Also, I have another challenge for you: make a card that would have been a 2/2 in MC in Round 2 that works under the current CR (those published for LCI) with no need for even just a single small adjustment. One that just works with the current CR being as they are, without changing a single comma. Would this be possible?

[Subject16]

For this card specifically, you would need a new card type that shares its subtype list with instants and sorcery and does nothing on its own, excatly what Tribal/Kindred is for creature types, only for spell types. This is the reason Tribal/Kindred is a card type and not a supertype. Let's say you call this new card type Mystical, and you suppose what's now a minor rules change that we can assume and that it's realistic enough: "Mysticals, Instants, and Sorceries all share their list of subtypes. Those are called "spell types". The spell types are... (the same they actually are)" Then you could make this:

Mending Class 1W
Mystical Enchantment — Lesson (U)
XW: Return target artifact card with mana value X from your graveyard to your hand.
At the beginning of your end step, sacrifice Mending Class unless you discard a card.
//
Shattering Class 1R
Mystical Enchantment — Lesson (U)
XR: Destroy target artifact with mana value X.
At the beginning of your end step, sacrifice Shattering Class unless you discard a card.

The issue I have here is one I've experienced once or twice during the MCC when experimenting with new mechanics/designs, and that's lack of opportunity for context.

As a judge, I have no way of knowing what the Mystical supertype represents, why it's a part of the design, and what role it plays in the greater game. All I see is an enchantment with a subtype it isn't meant to have, which puts me in the awkward position to have to make a judgment call without really understanding the card I'm judging. Like you said, I could assume that Mystical is to instants/sorceries what Kindred is to creature types, but it remains an assumption. I don't think as a judge it's one that I would make.

As a participant, there's also no means I've found to give context to the judges when I design new mechanics/types/etc. That, plus the fact that's it's actually pretty difficult to come up with new, interesting and fun design spaces means that more often than not I end up sticking to what's already doable in the game itself. Because I've had submissions be misinterpreted/misunderstood, and I've had entries be disqualified outright when I do provide context for pushing into new design territory.

If there's an expectation for us to push into new design spaces, there should also be an opportunity for us to contextualise them.

[bravelion83]

As a participant, there's also no means I've found to give context to the judges when I design new mechanics/types/etc.

That's meant to be reminder text. You can use that. I had thought about adding it to the card, then decided against it to keep the card as close to the original. But yes, reminder text would be the correct way to let the judge know what that new thing is, and if that were the card I submitted I would have absolutely used it, something like:

Mending Class 1W
Mystical Enchantment — Lesson (U)
(Mystical spells have the same subtypes as instants and sorceries.)
XW: Return target artifact card with mana value X from your graveyard to your hand.
At the beginning of your end step, sacrifice Mending Class unless you discard a card.
//
Shattering Class 1R
Mystical Enchantment — Lesson (U)
(Mystical spells have the same subtypes as instants and sorceries.)
XR: Destroy target artifact with mana value X.
At the beginning of your end step, sacrifice Shattering Class unless you discard a card.

This doesn't change the questions to Ryder in my last post. While relevant if it were a real submission, here we're just having a theoretical discussion, so that's why I didn't care too much about including reminder text that would be needed on a real submission.

[Subject16]

Reminder text isn't always sufficient though. It can explain most things sure, but as mechanics get more complicated and diverse I find reminder text often falls short of the mark. Take Cloister Gargoyle as an example. Dungeons and venturing was a very new mechanic and opened up a huge space in design with the addition of external game references, but the reminder text gives absolutely no true insight into what dungeons do. A similar mechanic, LTR's "the Ring tempts you", actually has no associated reminder text whatsoever.

Any attempt at venturing (no pun intended) into a similar design space is very difficult within the context of the MCC, as A) It requires lots of context due to external reference pieces, and B) Mechanics of this level of complexity would use up so much reminder text that it leaves no room for the card itself to work with the mechanic, which then has an impact on elegance, quality, the ability to include flavour text, etc...

Perhaps this is a specific example concerning external game elements, but it's a big window for design opportunities and I have no doubt WotC will continue uding it. As far as I'm concerned there's currently no sustainable way to explore these kinds of mechanics in the MCC.

[Subject16]

Main Challenge - Design a battle, enchantment, or planeswalker card that has an activated ability that directly causes a creature you control to explore.
(Here, "directly" means by saying explicitly "[creature] explores" and NOT by using an intermediate means like Map tokens for example. Those count for Subchallenge 2, here the "explore" keyword has to be on the card itself.)

Subchallenge 1
The card is a DFC with a nonland on its front face that transforms into a land on its back face. (0.5 points)

Assuming I go for Subchallenge 1. Does putting the activated ability on the back face of the card fulfill the Main Challenge, or does the front face require the activated ability?

[Ryder]

1. Mystical is overdoing it, instead, I'd just allow Lesson on non-spells, end of changes. If that is not a minor change, I don't know what is.
2. If we can't make cards that require CR changes, are new mechanics entirely banned in MCC? I don't like where this is heading.
3. Another design without going against existing rules.

Know Your Enemy W
Instant — Lesson (C)
Know Your Enemy can't be cast during night.
Target creature you control gains protection from Vampires and Werewolves until end of turn.
//
Hide in the Cellar 1W
Instant (C)
Cast Hide in the Cellar only during night.
Exile target creature you control. Return it to the battlefield under its owner's control at the beginning of the next end step.

[Raptorchan]

About February: I know it's a controversial topic and some people (@bravelion83) may probably dislike it, but what if we make Universes Beyond MCC once in a while?

[slimytrout]

1. Mystical is overdoing it, instead, I'd just allow Lesson on non-spells, end of changes. If that is not a minor change, I don't know what is.
2. If we can't make cards that require CR changes, are new mechanics entirely banned in MCC? I don't like where this is heading.

1. I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this. The fact that subtypes can't be shared among card types is fundamental enough to the rules that they introduced a whole new card type (tribal) to allow creature types to go on non-creature spells. Mystical is actually a much more minor change (although still the introduction of a new card type) since it just involves adding stuff to the rules rather than ripping out and replacing large chunks.

2. I think you're a little bit arguing in bad faith here, because as far as I can tell no one is suggesting that, we all want to allow new mechanics. The division is just about whether there are good ways to make it easier to do so without incurring penalties in elegance, viability, or quality. People do introduce mechanics in the MCC -- the first example that comes into my head is this submission from @netn10 in a contest I hosted about 15 months ago:

High-Order Berzok 2RW
Legendary Artifact Creature - Cyborg Cleric (Mythic)
Ward - 3 and 3 life.
You may surveil any player's cards instead of just yours.
Crime - Trigger Punishment triggers of permanents you control whenever an opponent draws a card.
Punishment - Surveil 1.
4/2

It did lose half a point for quality because Crime and Punishment shouldn't be italicized even assuming they were defined in the CR, and a point for elegance because of the convoluted wording of the Crime trigger, but the judge (@void_nothing) certainly did not seem opposed to the introduction of a new mechanic.

what if we make Universes Beyond MCC once in a while?

I think it could be fun, but the issue I see is flavor grading -- if you're a judge for the MCC currently, there's a baseline expectation of passable MTG lore knowledge in order to evaluate card submissions, but obviously we can't expect the judges to watch all of Star Trek to figure out how to grade a Borg Queen card. Yes, the existence of various wikis does help with that, but there's still going to be some luck of the draw with whether the judge happens to be familiar with the "universe" that you're pulling from -- I personally would worry about my ability to fairly grade a Howl's Moving Castle card (one of my favorite books of all time) against, I dunno, a Fullmetal Alchemist card (a series I've never watched and have only the faintest concept of what it's about). But if you have an idea for how to make the month work, I think you should go for it!

[void_nothing]

One solution to a Universes Beyond MCC is to stick to settings from sets that have already been printed. Even if we can't expect players or judges to have to do outside research on sites like fan wikis, the details of those settings are actually accessible to some degree through existing Magic products.

[Ryder]

2. I think you're a little bit arguing in bad faith here, because as far as I can tell no one is suggesting that, we all want to allow new mechanics. The division is just about whether there are good ways to make it easier to do so without incurring penalties in elegance, viability, or quality.

I was indeed a bit provocative, sorry. My point is, there are many possible ways to alter the rules of the game and as of today it's not at all clear what is acceptable and what is not. This discussion only proves it. We should do something about it. Perhaps another poll? I personally believe we should be encouraged to look for new design space, but sticking to what Wizards already came up with is doing the opposite...

In any case, I'm glad we are having this discussion. Means this month is already a huge success to me

[bravelion83]

Answers in semi-random order.

1. Mystical is overdoing it, instead, I'd just allow Lesson on non-spells, end of changes. If that is not a minor change, I don't know what is.

That's a HUGE change in the CR. It's the absolute contrary of minor. The list of subtypes for each card type is and has to be independent for each card type (save of course the overlap of instants and sorceries, and creatures and tribals/kindreds) for the very structure of that part of the game (the type line) to work in the first place. What you're asking for here is the equivalent of rebuilding it all from scratch, and it would take up a huge amount of resources for very little gain. Again, same reasoning why they're not doing new tribal/kindred cards anymore. You can't just say subtypes can go with any card type. Otherwise, why's the tribal/kindred card type needed? Tarfire could have been just "Instant — Goblin". They could do it the way you proposed, and they probably considered it, but ended up having to create the then tribal card type, exactly because of how the rules for card types work. Or, what's stopping you from having things like "Enchantment — Equipment", "Planeswalker — Ajani Phyrexian Cat", "Battle Creature — Trap Siege Aura Goblin"?

2. If we can't make cards that require CR changes, are new mechanics entirely banned in MCC? I don't like where this is heading.

That's always been allowed in the MCC. You CAN create new mechanics. You just have to make do with no extra content allowed, including design notes, explanations, examples, etc... You're supposed to make use of reminder text in those cases, and yes, that obviously does have repercussions in other areas (Subject16 is right about that). You have the additional challenge of writing a reminder text that is clear and short enough to fit in the frame. Even shorter if you want other things, like flavor text for example, to fit in the card. That's absolutely possible and has happened multiple times in the years I've been following this contest. I've seen it happen many times. Not too often, that I'll admit, but it has already happened from time to time. And no, it's not easy to do, but no one said it should be. It CAN be done though. Also, the host can create challenges that ask for new mechanics, and in that case they might allow an explanation of the mechanic to be added to the card in your submission post. That's also already happened in the past, maybe not the recent past, but I clearly remember it. Maybe it was back on Salvation, but it did happen. It can happen again.

3. Another design without going against existing rules.

Know Your Enemy W
Instant — Lesson (C)
Know Your Enemy can't be cast during night.
Target creature you control gains protection from Vampires and Werewolves until end of turn.
//
Hide in the Cellar 1W
Instant (C)
Cast Hide in the Cellar only during night.
Exile target creature you control. Return it to the battlefield under its owner's control at the beginning of the next end step.

Ok, something like this was exactly what I was looking for. Thank you.

About February: I know it's a controversial topic and some people (@bravelion83) may probably dislike it, but what if we make Universes Beyond MCC once in a while?

It's not that I dislike the idea of having a Universes Beyond MCC, what I heavily dislike is the existence of Universes Beyond in the first place (and many other things they've done recently by the way). But I can't blame that on anyone here, only on Wizards themselves, and I know the only thing I can do is to vote with my wallet, and in fact I've never ever bought a single Universes Beyond product or even just one card from any Universes Beyond products as singles. But as far as the MCC is concerned, that actually sounds like an excellent idea as a month theme for February or any other month. I wouldn't mind you (@Raptorchan) hosting February with this exact theme. Obviously, don't expect me to participate, neither as a player nor as a judge, but if you need any help from me, I'll still be here. It wouldn't be the first month I don't participate in the MCC because I don't like the theme. That's another thing that has already happened in the past, even though that too not too often, and can happen again with no problems. If you want to do it, I absolutely support the idea.

It did lose half a point for quality because Crime and Punishment shouldn't be italicized even assuming they were defined in the CR, and a point for elegance because of the convoluted wording of the Crime trigger, but the judge (@void_nothing) certainly did not seem opposed to the introduction of a new mechanic.

That's more or less the same deductions that I would have made as a judge. I'm also not opposed to the introduction of new mechanics in the MCC, it just has to be done well.

One solution to a Universes Beyond MCC is to stick to settings from sets that have already been printed. Even if we can't expect players or judges to have to do outside research on sites like fan wikis, the details of those settings are actually accessible to some degree through existing Magic products.

I agree that could be a viable solution, but obviously I'm not the best person to ask that to.

My point is, there are many possible ways to alter the rules of the game and as of today it's not at all clear what is acceptable and what is not.

In the MCC it's very clear what's acceptable: anything you can come up with that doesn't require you to add extra content to your submission post. If your new mechanic is so wordy, complex, or whatever, that reminder text is not enough, then maybe it's not the right mechanic to use in the MCC. You have all the other contests to use it in. As I often repeat, the MCC is the most strict and formal contest we have here, and that's a feature, not a bug. You don't have absolute freedom, but you have to work within an established system and do the best you can. This is part of what makes me love this contest so much, and I can't be the only one. Different contests are for different people, and that too is a feature and not a bug. Have you noticed, for example, that the last time I played in the CCL was a very long time ago? That's not by chance. Out of the major contests we have, the CCL is the most difficult to me. A significant amount of times I've reached the final poll, only to lose it to cards that in the MCC would have absolutely lost to mine. But I'm not complaining about that, I'm just bringing it up as the demonstration that different contests are for different people, and that's a good thing.

We should do something about it. Perhaps another poll?

I don't mind making another poll, but what exactly would be the question and the potential answers for this one? The question has to be about a specific thing, not just "should we allow new mechanics in the MCC?" That would be a useless poll, as you can already do that. We have to identify a possible solution, and ask if people like that proposed solution.

I personally believe we should be encouraged to look for new design space, but sticking to what Wizards already came up with is doing the opposite...

Again, you CAN already explore new design space they haven't explored yet at Wizards. You just have to do it in the right way to respect the restaints the rules of this contest force you to work within. The MCC is not a contest where anything goes, and it's not supposed to be. Again, other contests might be a better fit for you if you just want to be able to do whatever you want with absolute freedom.

In any case, I'm glad we are having this discussion. Means this month is already a huge success to me

I'm happy too about that. And that's not even taking into account our own private discussion that went on for days at the beginning. Now at least it's all public, and that's another good thing.

Ok, I should have covered more or less everything from the last few posts. Let me know if I missed something.

EDIT - Of course I missed something! @Subject16's clarification request for December. Sorry, my mind was so focused about January with this discussion that as I read that I went like "ok, I'll address this separately at the end" and then proceed to completely forget about it. Let me remedy that.

Main Challenge - Design a battle, enchantment, or planeswalker card that has an activated ability that directly causes a creature you control to explore.
(Here, "directly" means by saying explicitly "[creature] explores" and NOT by using an intermediate means like Map tokens for example. Those count for Subchallenge 2, here the "explore" keyword has to be on the card itself.)

Subchallenge 1
The card is a DFC with a nonland on its front face that transforms into a land on its back face. (0.5 points)

Assuming I go for Subchallenge 1. Does putting the activated ability on the back face of the card fulfill the Main Challenge, or does the front face require the activated ability?

The back face can have it, and the Main Challenge allows that just fine. The back face of a DFC is indeed a part of the card from a design standpoint, so if the required ability is on the back face of a DFC it's still there in the single card entity and the Main Challenge is met with no problems.

[Ryder]

You just have to do it in the right way to respect the restraints the rules of this contest force you to work within

Could you elaborate on this? Which MCC rules specifically address this issue? Where and how is the boundary between "acceptable new" and "unacceptable new" defined?

In the MCC it's very clear what's acceptable: anything you can come up with that doesn't require you to add extra content to your submission post. If your new mechanic is so wordy, complex, or whatever, that reminder text is not enough, then maybe it's not the right mechanic to use in the MCC

This appears to be very permissive, but I don't get that vibe from everything else you're saying. Apparently that Enchantment — Lesson was too much, even if it was (wasn't it?) intuitive.

[bravelion83]

In the first quote, I was referring to the fact that you have to work without the ability of adding any design notes, explanations, etc... in the submission post. Your card has to speak for itself, with no additional content. That was the restraint I was talking about.

About the Lesson enchantment, that's a different and totally unrelated matter. It's not at all about intuition. The whole game works under the CR (ignoring silver broder/acorn but that's assumed here unless explicitly mentioned). The CR are a logical system, and there are rules more fundamental than others to keep the structure that makes the game work alive. In the CR, there are things that you could easily change, and things that would cause the whole edifice to implode. These last ones are not unbreakable, but you have to weigh whether the work necessary to keep the logical system in function after you touched those things is actually worth it. Subtypes being tied to card types falls squarely into this last category. If you want a real example, think about why last strike is silver border: Maro, who tried to make it in black border for a long time, was told by several different Rules Managers that the effort that would be required to rewrite all the rules of combat to do it in the CR wouldn't be worth it. It's not that it would be impossible, it would be possible but not worth the effort. Same thing with mix-and-matching subtypes belonging to different card types. It may look like an innocent change, but you're actually playing with fire by messing with it. Other parts of the CR are much more malleable. That's why I might sound more permissive about those rather than things that mess with the foundation of the structure of the CR. I have no problems with the former, but I do with the latter.

[Ryder]

That's all good, but as someone actively looking to bend and break the rules I would like a hard reference, which sections of the CR are untouchable and which we can alter while designing our cards.