MTGNexus

haywire wrote: ↑

1 year ago

@Rithaniel yes, I was trying to ask you for the purposes of the january mcc. Sorry, I should have @ed initially.

No worries

haywire wrote: ↑

1 year ago

I guess with my question I was more thingking along the lines that the intuitive way of reading eternalize, whose reminder text is "Exile this card from your graveyard: Create a token that's a copy of it, except it's a 4/4 black Zombie CREATURETYPE with no mana cost. Eternalize only as a sorcery." could be seen to imply it's a creature regardless of what it was initially, especially on a first read, and so it could reasonably fall into the same category as hideaway in SNC, where the functionality was updated to allow it to be more in-line with what people expected it to play as. I thought this might be able to support an argument that a rules change this minor/that effects no existing cards could be seen as allowable. Regardless, I think I've moved on from this idea regardless, but I appreciately both yours and @bravelion83 's answers.

Ultimately all I can really tell you is how I would evaluate it, and, truth be told, if you did the change the way the mechanic worked and never told me that you changed something, there is a real chance I never would have noticed.

But, supposing I did notice it, I would toss it into the same "mental box" as "entirely new keyword mechanics," and then I'd be on the fence about the mechanic having the same name. I could understand a person taking a half-point off for it, but I could also understand a judge not taking a half-point off.

haywire wrote: ↑

1 year ago

Regardless, I think I've moved on from this idea regardless, but I appreciately both yours and @bravelion83 's answers.

Fair enough. It's a really good question, though.

Rithaniel wrote: ↑

1 year ago

But, supposing I did notice it, I would toss it into the same "mental box" as "entirely new keyword mechanics," and then I'd be on the fence about the mechanic having the same name. I could understand a person taking a half-point off for it, but I could also understand a judge not taking a half-point off.

I personally would certainly be in the no-points-off camp. I feel like this is the sort of change that wizards does all the time and just hides in the "comprehensive rules updates" that few people really read.

slimytrout wrote: ↑

1 year ago

Rithaniel wrote: ↑

1 year ago

But, supposing I did notice it, I would toss it into the same "mental box" as "entirely new keyword mechanics," and then I'd be on the fence about the mechanic having the same name. I could understand a person taking a half-point off for it, but I could also understand a judge not taking a half-point off.

I personally would certainly be in the no-points-off camp. I feel like this is the sort of change that wizards does all the time and just hides in the "comprehensive rules updates" that few people really read.

Same. Mostly because it's such a small change I'd probably have overlooked the issue without it being pointed out.

Yeah, I'm starting to lean more towards "no points off," too.

Also, we have about half a day left in the round.

@bravelion83 While I will try my best to complete the December MCC final challenge by the deadline, I may need a bit more time and request an extension.

My December final entry is complete.

My January Round 1 judgments are finished and polished up now.

My January Round 1 judgments are also finished. I might still polish them a bit, though.

@Rithaniel Do alt costs of any kind work for the MCC round 2 main challenge? For example, does Lingering Souls pass because it has a cost for which it can be cast normally requiring generic and white mana, and one (flashback) for which it can be cast from graveyard, requiring generic and black mana?

@Rithaniel For MCC round 2 sub-challenge 1, does it have to be exactly 2 colors of mana? From your Messenger Falcons, it can clearly be comprised of more than 2, but messenger hawks still only requires 2 in any given case. Would something like Siege Rhino count?

I've also taken a look at January Round 2. Ironically, I've posted a card in the DCC a couple weeks ago that would have been perfect for this round, and that by the way won the day, probably exactly because things like these have never been done before in real Magic, as Rithaniel mentions himself in the intro. It was December 29th and that DCC thread is now archived so I can't quote or link to it, but I'm referring to this card: I'll certainly try to come up with something new, but I wonder what would happen if I posted that same card in the MCC too right now. I've seen cards from the MCC being posted in the DCC and there are absolutely no problems with that, but I can't remember having ever seen a card going the opposite route. This is just a note, I don't think I will actually do that, I just wanted to mention that I could if I wanted to and I wondered if that would hypothetically be acceptable.

void_nothing wrote: ↑

1 year ago

@Rithaniel Do alt costs of any kind work for the MCC round 2 main challenge? For example, does Lingering Souls pass because it has a cost for which it can be cast normally requiring generic and white mana, and one (flashback) for which it can be cast from graveyard, requiring generic and black mana?

Yes, any alt cost works, as long as it is "off-color." I gave Smiting Helix as an example for that reason. It could also be madness, miracle, dash, prowl, or anything else.

haywire wrote: ↑

1 year ago

@Rithaniel For MCC round 2 sub-challenge, does it have to be exactly 2 colors of mana? From your Messenger Falcons, it can clearly be comprised of more than 2, but messenger hawks still only requires 2 in any given case. Would something like Siege Rhino count?

A cost is allowed to require more than two mana, but must require at least two. A cost of would have at least two, and so would work.

I'll add this to the clarifications and reword the challenge.

bravelion83 wrote: ↑

1 year ago

Ironically, I've posted a card in the DCC a couple weeks ago that would have been perfect for this round:

Atraxa's Compleation

Show

Hide

Atraxa's Compleation GU
Instant (R)
Rewind 2WB (You may cast this spell for its rewind cost. If you do, all targets must be the same and you perform the listed actions in reverse order while resolving this spell. This is not a modal spell.)
• Destroy target nonland permanent if it's an artifact or enchantment you don't control.
• Choose artifact or enchantment. Target nonland permanent becomes the chosen type in addition to its other types until end of turn.
"This will show to Urabrask that all will really be one, inevitably."
—Elesh Norn

You're right, this card would pass all challenges except the second subchallenge.

With regard to the second subchallenge and MDFC/double-faced cards, does each side of the card need to fit into this criteria? If one side is a creature and the other an enchantment like with Disturb, does that satisty the subchallenge?

Subject16 wrote: ↑

1 year ago

With regard to the second subchallenge and MDFC/double-faced cards, does each side of the card need to fit into this criteria? If one side is a creature and the other an enchantment like with Disturb, does that satisty the subchallenge?

The second subchallenge considers the card as a whole. So a double-faced card would account for both sides, and if two or more card types are seen, then you satisfy the challenge (so, something like Shepherd of the Flock // Usher to Safety, Wandering Archaic // Explore the Vastlands, or Soul Seizer // Ghastly Haunting all satisfy the second subchallenge, but not necessarily the first two).

I'll add to the clarifications.

@slimytrout wins December. Congratulations! You can find the judgments here. As I wrote there, I've already got ideas for my next set-themed MCC, the one about ONE (you can choose whether the pun is intended of not), for me to host in March. The month, obviously, not March of the Machine... in my intentions, that will probably come in June seeing how The Aftermath is released mid May... but that's even further away in the future so let's just not worry about that for now.

Congrats to slimytrout!

Also, Leo, if you'd like I can mark you down now for hosting in March.

void_nothing wrote: ↑

1 year ago

Also, Leo, if you'd like I can mark you down now for hosting in March.

Please do! I'd really appreciate that! Thank you! I just have a few subchallenges left to figure out but I already have a very good idea of what I'm gonna do.

@slimytrout Congratulations on winning the December MCC! Your designs were really solid.

@Rithaniel what is the proper way to format an adventure card for MCC? Would it be:

CARDNAME {Mana cost}
[Creature typeline] {Rarity}
Creature rules text
//
ADVENTURENAME {Mana cost}
[Adventure typeline]
Adventure rules text

haywire wrote: ↑

1 year ago

@Rithaniel what is the proper way to format an adventure card for MCC? Would it be:

CARDNAME {Mana cost}
[Creature typeline] {Rarity}
Creature rules text
//
ADVENTURENAME {Mana cost}
[Adventure typeline]
Adventure rules text

I know this question wasn't addressed to me, but I went though that myself while hosting the Throne of Eldraine set-themed MCC in October 2019. See for example this round thread (Round 2). I admit that due to the unique nature of that month (the "choose your own adventure" style), navigating the clarifications spoiler might be hard, but in the "Adventure" section there I write this, which I'm copy/pasting here as the thread is archived so I can't quote it directly:

Q: How should I format my adventurer card?
A: Just like if it were a split card. Write the creature part as a normal text card, then add a separator below it (a double forward slash, //, is advised), and then write the Adventure part as it would be written on the left side of a real adventurer card's text box. In the Adventure part, don't forget the "Adventure" subtype and not only you can not put rarity in, but you should not. On real adventurer cards, there is no colored expansion symbol on the type line of the Adventure part.

For example, Flaxen Intruder would be written out like follows.

Flaxen Intruder G
Creature — Human Berserker (U)
Whenever Flaxen Intruder deals combat damage to a player, you may sacrifice it. When you do, destroy target artifact or enchantment.
The middle blade was just right.
1/2

//

Welcome Home 5GG
Sorcery — Adventure
Create three 2/2 green Bear creature tokens. (Then exile this card. You may cast the creature later from exile.)

This is just implied in the guidelines and not stated explicitly though, so the host has some leeway. If I were the host this month, I'd say that you got it right, but don't quote me on that as I am not.

haywire wrote: ↑

1 year ago

@Rithaniel what is the proper way to format an adventure card for MCC? Would it be:

CARDNAME {Mana cost}
[Creature typeline] {Rarity}
Creature rules text
//
ADVENTURENAME {Mana cost}
[Adventure typeline]
Adventure rules text

Well, my thoughts are that most frame formats don't get used very often in custom card creation, so there is no standard. As long as we can understand what the card is meant to be, any way of formatting the card is acceptable. (The key detail here being that we understand it. If you use wild and alien formatting that has to be decoded before the card can be observed, that'd be an issue. But I think your proposed formatting is fully acceptable.)

Also, here is a courtesy reminder to @kwanyeegor-ii, @MonoRedMage, and haywire to make sure you get your cards in. You have ~21.5 hours from the time of this post to put up your submission for the round.

Rithaniel wrote: ↑

1 year ago

the thread will still go up on Tuesday the 22nd

@Rithaniel The 22nd is tomorrow and it's a Sunday. Did you mean Tuesday 24th? Just for clarity.

Alright, my judgments are up. I might edit them in the next 23 hours, though.

My January MCC Round 2 judgments are finished up

With March squared away I am putting out the call for a host for the February MCC.