The MCC Discussion Thread

[Subject16]

Perhaps a way to think about it @haywire is "If I play my Case, take no further actions and go to my end step, can it solve?"

It's not the most elegant way to think about it, but it seems what's being asked is for the Case itself to somehow guarantee that it can't be solved the turn it comes down. Case of the Stashed Skeleton does it by creating a Skeleton you need to get rid of, whereas Case of the Gateway Express checks for an outside condition so it's not a guarantee.

Also I don't mind you using my submission as an example. The "To solve" of not casting spells that turn was what I came up with before any of these discussions as it was one of the more "impossible" ones considering you usually need to cast the case.

[haywire]

Subject16 wrote:
So if I understand correctly, if for example you have a Case that makes two creature tokens on ETB but has a "To solve" of "you control exactly one creature", that would fulfill the subchallenge? Without any additional cards, there's no way to solve the case the turn it comes down, right?

Correct. Subchallenge 1 is met here. The key part is that "without additional cards". I believe that is the part that is causing this misunderstanding.

I am really sorry for pushing so much on this, but by this logic, Case of the Stashed Skeleton must also pass, correct? It's the same exact line of reasoning. The only way to satisfy it the turn it enters is to sac a creature (or destroy your own creature).

I think I am struggling most with the idea of specificity. To me, Case of the Gateway Express requires other cards that meet the requirement of "are creatures", which is obviously a low level of specificity. But Stashed skeleton and the example quoted above just require either "sac outlets" or "removal", which I would argue are a similar level of generality. I fully understand that if I have to mention a specific card by name, then it doesn't apply, but I'm just losing the line where removal, which scryfall tags nearly 4000 cards as, is too specific.

@Subject16 yeah, my current working definition is "If I cast my case normally for its mana cost, and no other cards or effects modify, replace, or interact with any of the case's effects or any permanents or abilities created by the case, its To Solve ability will not successfully trigger at this end step." I don't believe there's a simpler objective definition to capture the scope of the subchallenge with all the corner cases that are allowed.

[bravelion83]

I'll read the last two posts now, in the meantime you can check the four sample cards in my last post, that unfortunately has fallen back on the last page of the thread, so I'll copy and paste it here too for convenience. I've discovered a bug in the fifth one so I won't post it until I manage to fix it. Look at these at your own risk.

All of these cards pass all the challenges (Main, Sub 1, Sub 2 both modes) (Done for now)

Show

Hide

Main Challenge - Design a multicolored Case enchantment card (both traditional gold and hybrid count) that has no other supertypes, card types, or subtypes.

Subchallenge 1 - If you consider you Case card in a vacuum, forgetting about any existing real Magic card, then your Case cannot be solved on the same turn it enters the battlefield.
EDIT March 26th 7:30 pm CET: The wording of this Subchallenge has been modified, but in a non-functional way. It's still the same as before just with different words.
EDIT March 25th 8 pm CET (further edited with the rewording of the Subchallenge):
This means that your Case's "To solve" condition can't be met (and thus make your Case solved) on the same turn the Case has entered the battlefield.
Ignore any interactions between the "To solve" condition and any other existing cards (for example Stifle being able to counter the "solve at end of turn" triggered ability, or Opalescence being able to animate your Case) and anything that might make the Case solved by any means other than using the "To solve" condition of your Case itself.
Only the "To solve" condition of your Case is evaluated for the purposes of this Subchallenge.

Subchallenge 2 - Choose one or both —

• The first ability of your Case is a replacement effect that applies to an event OTHER THAN your Case entering the battlefield. (0.5 points)

• Your card's rules text mentions at least three different card types. (0.5 points)

The Main Challenge should be evident for all of these. I'll explain the Subchallenges.
S1 = Subchallenge 1
S2.1 = Subchallenge 2 mode 1
S2.2 = Subchallenge 2 mode 2


Case of Altered Time 4UR
Enchantment — Case (R)
Each opponent skips their upkeep step.
To solve — A spell or ability resolved during your upkeep step this turn while you controlled this Case. (If unsolved, solve at the beginning of your end step.)
Solved — At the beginning of your upkeep, scry 1, then create a 1/1 red Construct artifact creature token named Clockwork and a 1/1 blue Elemental enchantment creature token named Time Distortion. Those tokens gain haste until end of turn.

S1 - Only opponents skip the upkeep, you don't. You get your upkeep normally, so that's not the point here. This Subchallenge is passed thanks to the "while you controlled this Case" part. There is no way (that doesn't require external help, again, we're reasoning in a vacuum here, the board is still there but this card is all that exists while we do our reasoning here) that the "To solve" condition is true if I cast this Case this turn. The earliest I can cast this Case is my first main phase, and by then my upkeep has already passed, so even if something resolved during my upkeep, I didn't have this Case under my control yet, I had yet to cast it. If something resolved during my upkeep it wasn't "while I controlled this Case". So S1 is met here.

S2.1 - The word "skip" identifies a replacement effect by definition in the CR. The affected event is the existence of the upkeep step for your opponents, not the Case itself entering the battlefield.

S2.2 - In the Solved ability I mention artifact, creature, and enchantment as the card types of the tokens.


Case of Leyline Entanglement 2RG
Enchantment — Case (R)
If one or more artifact, creature, and/or enchantment tokens would be created under your control, that many tokens plus a Treasure token are created instead.
To solve — You've spent no mana this turn. (If unsolved, solve at the beginning of your end step.)
Solved — Whenever a Treasure you control is sacrificed for mana, put a +1/+1 counter on target creature you control, then that creature fights up to one target creature an opponent controls.

S1 - I've already spent the mana to cast this Case itself, so that will make sure the "To solve" condition is false on the turn this entered. The fact that there are ways to cast this or put it onto the battlefield for free using external help doesn't count. Without external help that's impossible, and external help doesn't count for this Subchallenge.

S2.1 - The word "instead" at the end identifies the first ability as a replacement effect. The affected event is the creation of the tokens, not the Case itself entering the battlefield.

S2.2 - In the first ability, I mention artifact, creature, and enchantment as the types of tokens whose creation allows you to get an extra Treasure. By the way, the extra Treasure doesn't invoke the replacement effect again, it doesn't generate an infinite loop because a replacement effect can only change a given event once.


Case of the Burning Bonfire 1BR
Enchantment — Case (R)
If another source you control would deal noncombat damage to a battle, creature, or planeswalker an opponent controls, it deals that much damage plus 1 to that permanent instead.
When this Case enters the battlefield, it deals 1 damage to any target.
To solve — No noncombat damage has been dealt this turn. (If unsolved, solve at the beginning of your end step.)
Solved — Players can't gain life and damage can't be prevented. This Case has "At the beginning of your upkeep, this Case deals 1 damage to any target."

S1 - The 1 damage on ETB is noncombat damage (external sources might counter the ETB ability or prevent the damage, but again, external help doesn't count while evaluating this Subchallenge), so at the end of the turn this Case entered, at least that noncombat damage will have been dealt and thus the "To solve" condition can't be true, which makes this Case not solvable on the turn it enters.

S2.1 - The Case can still have an ETB ability (or any abilities by the way) after the replacement effect and before "To solve". The first ability is still a replacement effect as identified by the word "instead". The affected event is dealing noncombat damage, not the Case itself entering the battlefield.

S2.2 - In the replacement effect I mention battle, creature, and planeswalker.


Case of the Fallen Soldiers 3WU
Enchantment — Case (R)
If you would draw a card during your draw step, instead put a memory counter on this Case, then scry X, where X is half the number of memory counters on this Case, rounded down, then draw a card.
To solve — There are three or more memory counters on this Case. (If unsolved, solve at the beginning of your end step.)
Solved — At the beginning of each combat, choose up to one target creature, planeswalker, or battle you control. Prevent all combat damage that would be dealt to that permanent this turn. If it's a creature, untap it.

S1 - Without external help (for example proliferate), it's not possible for this Case to have three memory counters on it at the end of the turn it was cast and entered. Actually, the draw step has already passed when I get the first chance to cast this in my turn, that is as soon as I get priority in my first main phase, so the replacement effect, which is the way to generate memory counters, will not even get a single chance to apply until my next draw step, that is in my next turn, not this one. So there will always be zero memory counters on this at the end of the turn it was cast and entered, and so the "To solve" condition can't be true at that point. Even just it getting a single memory counter would require external help, which we don't consider while evaluating this Subchallenge.

S2.1 - The word "instead" identifies a replacement effect in the first ability. The affected event is you drawing a card during your draw step, not the Case itself entering the battlefield.

S2.2 - In the Solved ability I mention creature, planeswalker, and battle.


I have a fifth one but I discovered a bug in it while I was typing the explanation for it, so I removed it for now. If I manage to fix it I'll put it back here. Otherwise, these four should already be enough.

Perhaps a way to think about it @haywire is "If I play my Case, take no further actions and go to my end step, can it solve?"

It's not the most elegant way to think about it, but it seems what's being asked is for the Case itself to somehow guarantee that it can't be solved the turn it comes down. Case of the Stashed Skeleton does it by creating a Skeleton you need to get rid of, whereas Case of the Gateway Express checks for an outside condition so it's not a guarantee.

This is perfect and all correct. Thank you, Subject16.

I am really sorry for pushing so much on this, but by this logic, Case of the Stashed Skeleton must also pass, correct? It's the same exact line of reasoning. The only way to satisfy it the turn it enters is to sac a creature (or destroy your own creature).

Case of the Stashed Skeleton would pass Subchallenge 1. Without external help, it's not possible to "unsuspect" the Skeleton token on the same turn the Case is cast and enters the battlefield.

my current working definition is "If I cast my case normally for its mana cost, and no other cards or effects modify, replace, or interact with any of the case's effects or any permanents or abilities created by the case, its To Solve ability will not successfully trigger at this end step."

Way too detailed. The actual definition would be something like: "If I cast my Case normally for its mana cost, and nothing outside of my Case's other effects interferes in any way, its To Solve ability will not successfully trigger at this end step."

But Stashed skeleton and the example quoted above just require either "sac outlets" or "removal", which I would argue are a similar level of generality.

Nothing requires anything. That's the point. If you have to mention "sac outlets" and "removal", you're already thinking in the wrong way. Just cast your Case normally and assume nothing interferes (notice that I don't even have to say what specifically that "nothing" is or might be). At end of turn, when the first check happens, will you be able to solve the Case? Answer no to that question for Subchallenge 1 to be met.

[haywire]

Way too detailed. The actual definition would be something like: "If I cast my Case normally for its mana cost, and nothing outside of my Cases's other effects intervenes in any way, its To Solve ability will not successfully trigger at this end step."

Ok, I think I have the correct understanding now. Our definitions are pretty identical as far as I can see, I just wrote mine in the explicit positive as opposed to the implicit negative.

Thank you for your patience and time in explaining all of this. I think a combination of your initial comment about how "It is possible, I've thought of 2 ways to do it" and the explicit call-out of "no corner cases" led me down a very anal-retentive pathway to interpreting the subchallenge that I struggled to shake. I think another contributing factor is that I never think about MTG in terms of intuition/natural definitions, but rather just pure rules, so this subchallenge that was probably really obvious from that sort of perspective was so problematic for me.

Nothing requires anything. That's the point. If you have to mention "sac outlets" and "removal", you're already thinking in the wrong way. Just cast your Case normally and assume nothing interferes (notice that I don't even have to say what specifically that "nothing" is or might be). At end of turn, when the first check happens, will you be able to solve the Case? Answer no to that question for Subchallenge 1 to be met.

I still disagree with this point. If "Nothing requires anything" as you say, then I still think Gateway Express (and every other case) should pass, as they all require something to be solveable (or not solveable, but from a logic perspective, same thing, negation is still the same operation). I still don't have an understanding as to why mentioning removal is the wrong path, but mentioning creatures isn't.

At this point, though, I think we're just disagreeing on semantics, I have the understanding I need to do the round.

[bravelion83]

I still don't have an understanding as to why mentioning removal is the wrong path, but mentioning creatures isn't.

Gateway Express just checks the state of the board, you could call it a "passive" thing. Removal is something you (or your opponent) "actively" do that might interfere with the solving of your case. Subchallenge 1 has no problem with the former, but ignores the latter. If this idea just confuses you more, ignore it and go with your found understanding. If you need more clarifications, you know where to find me.

[haywire]

@bravelion83 I just have one (hopefully) final question then, following the passive/active paradigm and the specific card paradigm. If my card is Case of the Hey I Need a Squirrel and it has some unrelated first effect, and the To Solve is "You control a Squirrel token", that would pass, because you would actively need to use a specific card to create a Squirrel token to solve it?

[bravelion83]

@bravelion83 I just have one (hopefully) final question then, following the passive/active paradigm and the specific card paradigm. If my card is Case of the Hey I Need a Squirrel and it has some unrelated first effect, and the To Solve is "You control a Squirrel token", that would pass, because you would actively need to use a specific card to create a Squirrel token to solve it?

It depends whether the "first effect" creates a Squirrel token or not. As you say "unrelated", I assume it doesn't, in which case there would be no way for you to control a Squirrel token without using other cards, and if I've understood that correctly, then yes, Subchallenge 1 would be met. If the "first effect" can somehow produce a Squirrel token, then it wouldn't.

EDIT - I believe I've fixed the fifth sample card. Here it is:

This also meets all the challenges (look at your own risk)

Show

Hide

Case of the Broken Soul 2WB
Enchantment — Case (R)
Flash
If an enchantment card would be put into a player's graveyard from anywhere and this Case entered the battlefield this turn, instead exile that card, then that player exiles another card from their hand.
To solve — Two or more enchantment cards were put into graveyards from anywhere this turn while this Case was on the battlefield. (If unsolved, solve at the beginning of your end step.)
Solved — 4WB: Return target enchantment, creature, or planeswalker card from your graveyard to the battlefield.

MC - It's an "Enchantment — Case" that's multicolored and has nothing more on the type line.

S1 - The "To solve" condition requires the two enchantment cards to have been put into a graveyard with the Case on the battlefield, so it doesn't count eventual enchantment cards that were put into a graveyard this turn before this Case entered the battlefield. It only counts ones that are put on the battlefield after it entering, but if this Case entered this turn then it's not possible for an enchantment card to be put into a graveyard at all because the replacement effect will replace that event with exiling the enchantment card and making its owner (into whose graveyard it will go) also exile another card. The way replacement effects work, the event that has been replaced never actually happens, so if this Case entered this turn, enchantment cards won't go into graveyards for the rest of the turn, preventing the "To solve" condition from being true when it's checked at end of turn: enchantment cards that have gone to graveyards before this Case entered don't count, and after the Case enters enchantment cards will go straight into exile for the rest of the turn, never actually hitting the graveyard. Thus it's not possible to solve this Case on the same turn it enters the battlefield.

S2.1 - Flash is a keyword, and in the clarifications I say that "the first ability" doesn't count keywords before it that have to be on their own line, like flash, so here we actually look at the ability between flash and "To solve", and that is indeed a replacement effect as it contains the word "instead". The event to which it applies is the enchantment card being put into the graveyard, not the Case itself entering the battlefield.

S2.2 - I mention enchantment all over the card, and creature and planeswalker in addition to that in the Solved ability.

[void_nothing]

I have an idea for next month's contest, so I think I'll get back to hosting after a bit of a break!

[haywire]

A little more than 24h to the design deadline. We're still missing @Lorn Asbord Schutta's submission. I also remind everybody that you're still allowed to edit your submission until then.

Just for clarification, isn't the design deadline in 10 hours?

[bravelion83]

A little more than 24h to the design deadline. We're still missing @Lorn Asbord Schutta's submission. I also remind everybody that you're still allowed to edit your submission until then.

Just for clarification, isn't the design deadline in 10 hours?

It is. The deadline is at 6 am here in Italy and somehow I confused 6 am with 6 pm... About 10 hours from this post. Thank you.

EDIT - Fixed in the round thread. Thanks again. Don't forget you all can still edit until then!

[Ink-Treader]

My March MCC Round 4 judgments are finished. Any questions about your own card's judgments can be asked here, any questions about another player should be done by PM.

[haywire]

@Ink-Treader as a self-proclaimed spike/johnny, I'd like to float the idea that spike might be more interested in this card than you think. (I agree with the analysis that johnny wouldn't really care). One of the basic rules of thumb that has always been told to me in tournament circles has been that seeing more of your deck generally gives you a better chance at winning. A Spike playing this card would almost certainly be in a deck with a lot of instant speed draw/control effects, so they can take it back when and however they want, while removing all of the threats that their opponent already has. Then, when their opponent has to cut their natural draw severely just to keep this from going off, Spike will just bury them in value. Also, in this world where Spike is playing a deck that just digs very efficiently, it's not unreasonable for them to play a second copy, which in many ways buries decks that don't have extra ways to draw.

Basically, I think Spike plays this in a control deck where they have so many draw effects that it basically comes back to them whenever they want, and the appeal is essentially forcing their opponents to draw less threats, making it easier to control them.

Just wanted to pitch the idea. Either way, thank you so much for judging this month!

[Lorn Asbord Schutta]

@Ink-Treader I disagree about Balance
Your strike against the submission is how problematic it is to achieve the solved condition. In commander, any kind of wheel effect that includes opponents will suffice. Temple Bell activation and a single card already exiled with an enchantment before, whether the submission or any other kind will be enough. A single turn cycle by itself gives you at least three cards towards the four you need. I understand that the concern is more for the 1v1, but even there opponent's draw and Secret Rendezvous is enough. All kinds of 'target player draws cards' effects will help, if not being enough, with some of them being particulary nasty like Careful Consideration. Obviously, those give opponent cards, so they could be considered inoptimal, but the 'to solve' cares about any of your enchantments. Beyond Banishing Light tribal, there are cards that have a use beyond solving my submission and play nicely with it in other ways, namely Leyline of the Void and Rest in Peace. I agree that my submission would be awful in limited, where there is a little chance that you will have a needed support, but this was another reason why I have made it a mythic instead of a rare.

[Ink-Treader]

@Ink-Treader I disagree about Balance
Your strike against the submission is how problematic it is to achieve the solved condition. In commander, any kind of wheel effect that includes opponents will suffice. Temple Bell activation and a single card already exiled with an enchantment before, whether the submission or any other kind will be enough. A single turn cycle by itself gives you at least three cards towards the four you need. I understand that the concern is more for the 1v1, but even there opponent's draw and Secret Rendezvous is enough. All kinds of 'target player draws cards' effects will help, if not being enough, with some of them being particulary nasty like Careful Consideration. Obviously, those give opponent cards, so they could be considered inoptimal, but the 'to solve' cares about any of your enchantments. Beyond Banishing Light tribal, there are cards that have a use beyond solving my submission and play nicely with it in other ways, namely Leyline of the Void and Rest in Peace. I agree that my submission would be awful in limited, where there is a little chance that you will have a needed support, but this was another reason why I have made it a mythic instead of a rare.

I would say it's more overcosted than most existing cases are for the base effect. The Solved ability is quite good, and readily achievable in multiplayer, but also reads as quite fair because they get the spells you cast back. I think at least 1 could be shaved off the cost, maybe 2, especially with the current three color requirement.

[bravelion83]

I'm sorry but I haven't been able to finish my judgments yet nor I think I will be able to tomorrow due to the Easter celebrations of these last days. Maybe tomorrow night, or at the worst on Monday.

[void_nothing]

The first round of the April MCC is now up, which of course is open for anyone to enter! I haven't gone to the length of creating a detailed calendar this month, but I will follow the precedent of the last several months in challenge design and attempting to expedite the contest.

Judge signups are also open.

[bravelion83]

I will follow the precedent of the last several months in challenge design and attempting to expedite the contest.

I really appreciate this. If what I did in January with Ryder and in March with Ink-Treader (expect me to declare the winner tomorrow night... hey, the 1st of the next month is still not bad, especially considered that it was Easter time) results in bringing back the contest to proper timing in general, I can only be happy about that!

That said, I'd like to skip judging in April, as I have several things concentrating in the month, still consequences of my father's passing, at least one each week for all April. I have to be just a simple player in April, and I will do exactly that. I'm certain somebody else will sign up to judge April.

As for hosting, I know you have my months in your mental calendar, so I guess you're expecting this, but you can consider June taken for the OTJ month. I won't write a Western story this time, but I do want to try something more flavor-driven this time, obviously still including all mechanics from OTJ. I'll think more about it after I'm done with March, but I want to do it. I will host it.

Also, after I'm done with my March judgments (tomorrow night), as I had already announced, I will prepare a poll to gather feedback like Ryder did in January, but I will do it using Google forms (I had to learn to use that to make tests for my students during covid lockdown, so I already know how to do it and don't have to learn how to do it on a different platform). I'll let you all know here when it's ready.

[void_nothing]

Please take care of your obligations, I'd be happy to have you on as a player this month.

[haywire]

@void_nothing for April 1 subchallenge 2.2, does "hexproof from X" count, or does it have to be flat hexproof?

[void_nothing]

@void_nothing for April 1 subchallenge 2.2, does "hexproof from X" count, or does it have to be flat hexproof?

Hexproof from quality is fine.

[bravelion83]

My own judgments for the final round of March are complete. I'll leave a few hours for eventual comments and officially declare the winner as I post the DCC at midnight CET.

EDIT - The time has come, so now I can officially say it: @Subject16 is the winner of the March DCC. Congratulations! Also, tomorrow I'll make the feedback poll. I'll post here the link when it's ready. Next time I will host will be on June for the OTJ month. I'll be a player in April, and I don't know what will happen in May. See you all on June!

[bravelion83]

The feedback poll about the March MCC is open. You can find it here. The poll is open for a week, until Tuesday, April 9th 2024 at midnight CET (my own time, sorry but it's more convenient for me). After the poll is closed, I will post the results right here in this thread.

The only rules are the following:
• I will keep your submitted form into account only if the username is authentic (in the sense that it's the same one you use here).
• If you try to vote more than once I will only consider your first submission.

If you have any problems with voting in this poll please pm me here on Nexus. There is no way to contact me directly from the form.

Thank you all in advance for the feedback you'll be willing to provide.

[Komandon]

The requirements of having or gaining Flying and subchallenge for hexproof or indestructible under its own ability I have a few question:

Does the evergreen ability have to be permanent or can it be a temporary such as only once

Does the every green ability count if it's a keyword counter

If the ability of creature's own to get the everygreen ability does that could requirements such as kicker, landfall, being modified (such as the outlast cards), sacrificing, hellbend, threshold, etc. Or just mana.

[void_nothing]

Maybe the easiest explanation would be to put it this way: Any ability with a clause that says the creature "gains flying/hexproof/indestructible", "has flying/hexproof/indestructible", or that can put one of those ability counters on the creature does count. Abilities that grant multiple creatures those abilities count if they can include the card itself.

[bravelion83]

This round is closed! Judging assignments are:

void_nothing
bravelion83
(...)

@void_nothing How many advance to Round 2 from each bracket? It's not specified, neither in the quoted post nor in the round OP. I guess top 6? Or maybe top 5?