The MCC Discussion Thread

[void_nothing]

@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?

Yup, sorry for the oversight, it is top 5! Given the participation this month, 10 players will advance to round 2, 6 to round 3, and 3 to the finals.

[Ink-Treader]

I have finished my April MCC Round 1 judgments.

[AnotherAlias]

There's a bit of rhyme going on with that flavor text I've notices, but I'm fairly certain the word you want is "foils", not "fails".

No, I do mean fails. In fact, I fail to see how foils would work there at all.

Flavor Text for Reference

Show

Hide

Even those sworn to keep the living from the dead have a price. One needs only to find their vice. And though one may prevail in finding their fails, one may find what comes after unkind.

[Ink-Treader]

There's a bit of rhyme going on with that flavor text I've notices, but I'm fairly certain the word you want is "foils", not "fails".

No, I do mean fails. In fact, I fail to see how foils would work there at all.

Flavor Text for Reference

Show

Hide

Even those sworn to keep the living from the dead have a price. One needs only to find their vice. And though one may prevail in finding their fails, one may find what comes after unkind.

You're right that foils is wrong. Foibles is the word that was escaping me. Using fails as a noun like that sounds overly slangy.

[void_nothing]

My judgments for round 1 are finished, a bit late - cuts were VERY difficult and some of my subjectively favorite cards hard to be scored lower on the MCC rubric.

[Ryder]

Honestly that was one of the most challenging and fun MCC rounds I've seen in a good while. I dropped the ball with indestructible only during combat and that alone makes me completely fine with the results. Watching closely the following rounds!

[bravelion83]

cuts were VERY difficult

I imagine you're referring to my card and having to eliminate me as a player especially here. I didn't expect at all being eliminated, but part of being a good player is knowing how to accept unexpected losses. I've even changed completely my submission as I felt the one before just had to be uncommon, maybe I shouldn't have changed it. Anyway, that's how it went, no regrets, and good luck to everybody who advances. I'll be there for sure next month though I don't know in which role, and on June I'll host the OTJ month. See you all then, and in the DCC in the meantime.

EDIT - PSA: Remember that the March feedback poll ends in about 8 hours from now (now it's just past 4 pm CET).

[Lorn Asbord Schutta]

@void_nothing, I suspect the answer, but surge by itself does not meet the main challange, as it has "teammate" only in reminder, right?

[void_nothing]

@void_nothing, I suspect the answer, but surge by itself does not meet the main challange, as it has "teammate" only in reminder, right?

Correct. You would have to also include one of the required phrases somewhere else in the text.

[bravelion83]

Tomorrow I need to get up early, so I need to go to bed now. Seeing we got two last minute entries today after we had none for several days, I prefer to keep the poll open until tomorrow rather than closing it earlier now. If somebody wants to answer and hasn't already done so, do it now! Tomorrow I'll close it and post the results with my own thoughts and comments (and also decisions for the OTJ month on June).

EDIT - It's 11:40 am CET right now. At about 1 pm I will have to start preparing to leave home for yet another round of bureaucracy for my father... I hate it. Will it ever end? Anyway, this goes to say that I will close the poll in about one hour from this edit, so get in while you can if you haven't already!

EDIT March 10th 12:58 pm CET — No further last minute replies have arrived, so I'm closing the poll right now. While I was waiting I started to write some analysis. I wrote comments for the first three questions, I'll do the rest tonight.

EDIT March 11th 0:37 am CET — I finished writing my comments in the spoiler below. Please look inside it for more.

Feedback results with Leo's comments

Show

Hide

How was the overall timing of the March MCC? (As a reminder: 4 days for design except Round 1, 3 days for judging, and time for comments or clarifications if the judges finish early)
• Way too slow.
• A little too slow.
• Just right. (9)
• A little too fast. (1)
• Way too fast.

Here I wanted to make sure I hadn't gone too fast in my self-imposed mission to demonstrate that what we did in January was not just possible (that was demonstrated in January already), but also repeatable. It looks like I've achieved my goal perfectly here. Yes, I agree, this is the proper timing for an MCC round. Even the guidelines document already said this, and January and March were occasions for us to get used to it again. I can officially announce that on this regard, the OTJ month in June will be the same.
As for the one reply "a little too fast", I know who that is (I can see how everybody voted for all questions from behind the scenes... no, actually that's because I'm the creator of the form so that's not only allowed but how it's supposed to work), and it didn't surprise me at all. There is a reason behind that vote, and I do know what it is, though I'm not sharing it publicly.
Overall, a perfect result for me here. The fast pacing keeps proving very successful, and that only reinforces the idea that this is indeed how the MCC should work.


How do you feel about having the complete calendar of planned deadlines for the whole month before Round 1 was even posted?
• It was great! I'd like this to be done every month. (4)
• It was good to know but I also could have done without it. (4)
• Indifferent. Knowing every deadline at the beginning of the month doesn't really change anything. (2)
• I wish I wouldn't have known them, it took surprise/suspence/excitement away from the rounds.
• It was a big mistake, it actively damaged the contest and should never be done again.

No negative votes whatsoever here. 4 people would like to have it every month, to 4 more it's useful, and to the last 2 indifferent but not negative. I will absolutely keep doing it in my own months, and I heartly invite other hosts to consider this idea too given this feedback. As for me doing it again in June, I've already made it. You check it out right here (consider this a preview of what I've planned for June based on this feedback):

OTJ MCC (June 2024) calendar

Show

Hide

Do you think that split weekends (each weekend having Saturday for design and Sunday for judging or vice versa) is the reason why we were able to finish on time in both January and March?
• Yes, it's the only/main reason. (1)
• Yes, it contributed but it wasn't the only/main reason. (6)
• Maybe, it probably contributed somewhat but not a lot. (3)
• No, it didn't hurt but it also wasn't the direct cause.
• No, it didn't matter at all, the reasons have to be searched somewhere else.

Again, no negative votes, so it's evident by now that the split weekends are a good thing, to implement whenever possible. I will keep doing it in my months, and I also heartly invite other hosts to consider it.
As for that single vote for the top option, it was NOT me. I know who it is, but I'm not making names here, I'll just say that it was a good surprise from them to me. You know who you are, thank you, even if I have to credit Ryder for the split weekend idea, and it wasn't him either.


How did you like Round 3 pairings being determined by the sum of the scores from previous rounds?
• I loved it! Do this every month. (4)
• I liked it, it was a nice touch but it shouldn't be done every month. (3)
• Indifferent. (2)
• I disliked it, it should be done rarely, maybe as a one-month twist from time to time but nothing more than that.
• I hated it! Please never do this again. (1)

All non-negative votes except for one, and again, it doesn't surprise me that it was who it was to check that last box. Honestly, if I were in their shoes, I would have probably answered this in the same way, I absolutely understand this answer from their point of view. Going back to speaking in general, it has become clear to me by now that having the Round 3 pairings depend somehow from the scores of the first two rounds is a good idea. Now we have to figure out what that "somehow" is exactly. The idea is clearly good, now we have to find the best execution. More on this below.

Would you be ready and willing to put Round 3 pairings being determined by the sum of the scores from previous rounds in the guidelines document as the recommended method for hosts to make pairings for Round 3 after it has been tested in December, January, and March?
• Yes, I'd be ready right now. (5)
• Maybe, but it needs more months of testing before putting it in the guidelines. (3)
• No, I don't think it should be included at all. (2)

Here too, I can't say I'm surprised by who those two votes for the "no" option are. 50% is good here, but this is not a simple majority vote. We need even more consensus to put it in. Here too I will notice that it's not specified in the question HOW the Round 3 pairings should depend on the sum of previous scores, only that they should depend somehow. I think we need to determine that "how" before proceeding to add it to the guidelines. In the end I'd say we keep testing for the moment, trying to understand the exact way to do it. I, for one, will keep iterating on this idea. You might have noticed in the calendar above that the Round 3 pairings in June will depend on the sum of previous scores, but they're matched in a different way. It's a subtle change, but it's there. The 1st is paired against the 4th and not the 6th, and the 3rd is paired against the 6th and not the 4th. The pairing of 2nd vs. 5th hasn't changed. This is NOT my idea, but it has been proposed by one of you in the "free feedback" text box at the end. I will quote what they wrote:

Currently the Round 3 pairings are done by matching the highest score from previous rounds with the lowest, then the second highest with the second lowest, and so on.
What about dividing the contestants in the third round by half, based on the points from previous rounds, and then pairing the topmost from one half with the topmost from another half, second topmost from one half with second topmost from another half, and so on?
If for instance there are six contestants in Round 3 ordered descendingly by their scores from previous rounds, then the first one would meet the fourth one, the second one the fifth one and the third one the sixth one.
I have felt that apart from my bracket the Round 3 was lopsided. It may be the intended effect, as it indeed promotes contestants who have done well in previous rounds, but the system proposed by me still gives such participants some advantage, while making the contestants in individual brackets closer to each other.

I'll leave it to them if they want to come out and explicitly say it was them. By the way, yes, that was exactly the intended effect. Where I am involved personally instead is in deciding to try that way in the next MCC month I will host. If whoever the host will be in May wants to try it before me, go ahead! I will do it this way in June anyway. This looks to me like a good way to prize good scores in Rounds 1 and 2 while at the same time not making whoever is in 6th place feel hopeless going against the top one. The player to which this happened has pointed it out themselves in the free box at the end how bad that pairing made them feel, at the point that they said they felt like if it wasn't possible for them to "survive even if I had an almost perfect score..." "...unless the other player really messed up worse than ever." The use of the verb "survive" in that sentence caught my attention. This contest shouldn't feel like a struggle for survival. Maybe this other way to pair players in Round 3 that has been proposed and that I'm going to try on June can help reduce that "struggle for survival" feeling while still prizing players who made better in Rounds 1 and 2 by giving them better pairings in Round 3 compared to the ones that they would have had if the pairing was random. I think we have to find the sweet spot between prizing doing well in the early rounds and avoiding feelings of helplessness for those who haven't done as well. This alternative way of pairing could help with that in my opinion. We'll try it on June and then reevaluate this together afterwards.


How was the difficulty of the challenges overall this month?
• Way too hard.
• A little on the hard side. (4)
• Just right. (6)
• A little on the easy side.
• Way too easy.

I agree that some challenges have turned out maybe a little too hard than ideal, some of that was intended but other things turned out to have been unintentionally underestimated by me instead. Overall, I am happy that most players felt like the difficulty of the challenges was appropriate. I admit there were details in the challenges where I feared I had pushed maybe too hard, so seeing these results reassured me about that. Maybe I haven't done a perfect job with the challenges, but I still made a good enough one, and that feels good to me. While in the setting of Ravnica I'm personally way more Boros than Azorius, if we speak in general without referring to any specific setting, I do definitely have a healthy dose of blue in my real world color identity. I'm an easy Jeskai if we go three colors. Blue believes that perfection exists and can be achieved, and so do I. I aim to do even better on June. I've already prepared a full set of challenges for all rounds, but there are a few details I have to think about a little more. Not a problem, I have all the rest of April and all May to polish my set of challenges. As I've written in the calendar, prepare yourself for something driven more by flavor than mechanics, though don't worry, all the named mechanics from OTJ's main set will be used during the month.

Do you feel the challenges this month required too much technical knowledge of the rules (as in the Magic Comprehensive Rules document)?
• Yes, they required more rules knowledge than the average player has, at an excessive level. (2)
• Yes, they required more rules knowledge than the average player has, but still at an acceptable level. (4)
• Indifferent. The challenges were doable with the amount of rules knowledge the average player has. (3)
• Not really, you can expect players to know the rules but I wouldn't push this as hard as this month.
• Not at all, on the contrary, challenges can push into rules knowledge even more than they did this month. (1)

This question wasn't planned to be in the poll at the beginning of the month. I added it after having seen how there have been problems with the intended interpretation of the challenges in two out of the four rounds. I was worried that given my deep love and knowledge of the CR I had unintentionally pushed too far. While I'm not a judge for real life reasons... well, now you all know it so I can say it: my depression and other related issues make the required travelling and resistance in long tournaments hard to me, and I also have no personal means of transportation nor I could drive them even if I had one as I also have no driver's license. I have to rely on public transportation only, and that doesn't help either. Anyway, I was saying, while I'm not a judge, I could easily be a L1 at least. I've taken several online simulations and I passed all of them. I know that I know the CR very well, and I was afraid that had made me blind to how much familiarity with the rules I was asking to the players while creating the challenges for the month. These results reassure me with such fears I had. Most people felt like the level of rules knowledge was still within acceptable bounds even if maybe on the higher side. About the extremes, I will say that it doesn't surprise me at all who was the one to say that challenges could be pushed even further. I was sure that particular person would have answered that way, I could have bet on that beforehand. But at the same time, I kindly invite that person to notice how they were the only one to give a "no" answer here. All the other people were indifferent at best, or said "yes", with two people saying it was excessive. I hope all future hosts, including both myself and that person but everyone really, will keep this feedback in mind. As for those two people who said it was excessive, I will say that they come from very different points of view, but I can absolutely understand both of them. Each for their own reasons, but I can easily see why both of them have voted that way and I apologize to both of them personally. They know who they are. I will try to make a better job on June. I can't promise I will manage, but I will certainly try. I think that maybe having an increased focus on flavor while still caring about all the mechanics could help with this particular issue, but I guess we'll see. As always, I'll try my best. That much I can promise.


How did you like the split Subchallenge idea (two tasks each worth 0.5 points out of which you can do nothing to get 0 points, either one to get 0.5 points, or both to get the full 1 point for that Subchallenge) that was implemented in every round on March in Subchallenge 2 and that had been previously tested in the final round of December?
• I loved it! Do this every month. (4)
• I liked it, it was a nice touch but it shouldn't be done every month. (1)
• Indifferent. (3)
• I disliked it, it should be done rarely, maybe as a one-month twist from time to time but nothing more than that. (1)
• I hated it! Please never do this again. (1)

Overall, the split Subchallenge format has been liked enough, and I'm happy for that as I can claim credit for that, as that was my own original idea for the final round of December 2023, which I hosted (it was the LCI month), and it was also my own idea to do it again and try to make it a full month thing on March. I'm not sure it should be done every month, but it's one more weapon in the arsenal of a host while creating the challenges, one that I've noticed void_nothing has decided all by himself to use again immediately, we had no contacts about it and I had no idea he would have done it until I saw April Round 1 posted, just like everybody else. While it was my own idea, I have absolutely no problems with other hosts also using it, on the contrary, I fully support them. All future hosts are free to use this idea if they wish. If an idea of mine was liked up to the point that other hosts want to use it too, that only makes me happy. That said, the fact that two people didn't like it, with one even saying they hated it, and "hate" is a strong word (and I used it in that option specifically for that reason, to give you an option if you had very strong feelings about it), shouldn't be ignored in my opinion. Seeing who they are doesn't surprise me, even if I admit that I would expected the two of them to be actually exchanged: the one I would have expected to hate it simply disliked it and vice versa. I think those two votes are a message to every host, myself included, to always keep every kind of player in mind while creating the challenges. One of the people who liked it instead suggested the following in the free box at the end:

I will also say that I think one could split both subchallenges in half. Though that shouldn't be too common a thing, perhaps as a Round 3 or 4 option.

I have already splitted both Subchallenges in the final round of December. Seeing this particular piece of feedback gave me an idea: using split Subchallenges as a means to increase the difficulty as the month progresses. I'm a firm believer that the overall difficulty of the challenges should constantly increase during the course of an MCC month, you want Round 1 to be the easiest to invite more players to enter the month and hopefully increase participation, while you want Round 4 to be the hardest because players are fighting to win the whole month so stakes need to be high. If Round 1 is the easiest and Round 4 is the hardest, then it's only logical that the in-between rounds should be increasingly more difficult. Each round should be harder than the previous one. With that spirit, and for these reasons, I've decided to approach this in a different way on June, as you might have already seen in the above calendar. Round 1 will be a classic one, with both Subchallenges being a single requirement each worth 1 point. The idea is that split Subchallenges inherently increase the difficulty of a round, because they increase the overall amount of goals, and as I said Round 1 should be the easiest ones, so no split Subchallenges to keep the overall difficulty the lowest possible. If Round 4 is supposed to be the hardest one, then both Subchallenges will be split there for maximum (but hopefully not excessive) difficulty. Given these premises, then the logical choice is for Rounds 2 and 3 to have one split Subchallenge and one classic one. As I've done on March, Subchallenge 1 will be the classic single additional requirement worth 1 point, while Subchallenge 2 will be the split one, with two additional requirements each worth 0.5 points. By doing it on March, I've also learned that if you have only one split Subchallenge, then the classic one worth 1 point should be more difficult than each of the two modes of the split Subchallenge (0.5 points each), just because the former is worth double the points than the latter. This is a thing I feel like I haven't paid enough attention to on March, and I will definitely try to do better on June.


Do you have any additional feedback about the March MCC that wasn't covered by the questions above? (optional) Note: this will only be seen by the creator of this poll (bravelion83), who might then post this or a summary in anonymous form in the MCC discussion thread.

Not everyone chose to write in the box here. Five people wrote something here. One of those five took advantage of the presence of this text box just to thank me, so I can only thank them in return:

Not feedback but thank you for your commitment to this competition and to improving it!

Thanks to you who wrote this for choosing to be a part of this contest and this community.

The other four wrote actual additional feedback. One used the box to clarify their answer on the difficulty of the rounds being "a little on the hard side":

I answered "a little on the hard side" for the difficulty question, but what I really think is that it was a little difficult for the first two rounds and then just right for the last two.

A fair opinion, to which I have no real reply other than I will try to keep it in mind for the future. Thanks anyway for the feedback.

The rest of the feedback provided in the text box here was essentially all converging on two different points, with multiple people talking about each of them:

1. Subchallenge 1 in the final round, the one about the Case being impossible to solve on the same turn it enters. One person said the following:

I do think that Subchallenge 1 for the final round could have been handled better, mostly because it ended up feeling completely irrelevant, though a couple of the designs did manage to make it truly or near impossible.

A different person, one of the players in that round, said this instead:

I don't regret my finals entry, but I did design it when I thought the criteria for meeting the subchallenge was a good bit stricter than it really was. I don't think there's anything wrong with having subchallenges that explicitly involve the judge's discretion (eg, "your card would flavorfully fit on the plane of Gobakhan"), but it can be frustrating as a player when clarifications after you've posted a card significantly alter your understanding of the (sub)challenge.

Yeah, I messed up on that Subchallenge, I take complete responsibility for that. I had this idea that in my mind looked so cool, very short to write, and intuitively and immediately understandable, at the point that it felt so natural to me to include it, I mean, how could I not? It was so clear, obvious, and crystalline! So I posted it. Then one corner case after another start popping out in the discussion thread, and suddenly that crystal broke in my mind and I had to address each single one in a coherent way, having to explain several details that looked so obvious to me that I took them for granted. And each corner case made the whole picture more and more fragile, until it broke down, inevitably, almost like a castle of glass I'd say as a Linkin Park fan. I have no problems explaining things multiple times, being a professional teacher requires you to be good at that, but this actually turned out to be a lesson to me first and then each other host too, past, present, and future: just because you have a challenge clear in your mind doesn't mean that it will be clear to your players. You, as host, have to put yourself in the players' shoes and try to see that challenge from the eyes of people that have a brain that works differently than yours, just because they are different people. The way you see things is unique to you. No other person will ever see anything like you do. This is at the same time a wonderful thing, as it's part of what makes each one of us a unique human being, unlike any other that has ever or will ever exist, and a potential source of troubles, as it only makes harder to explain your vision of something to other people that have all the rights in the world to fully see and understand it with their own mind. This was a trap that a professional teacher like me just had to avoid, and for that I deeply apologize to everyone. I'll definitely try to do better on June, and on all future months that I will host. This is also something I promise.

2. Additional feedback on the Round 3 pairings. One person said they were "lopsided". A different person defined them "odd" as "similar scores" were not "with others with similar scores". The different pairings of 1st vs. 4th and 3rd vs. 6th were also proposed, as I quoted above and as I will try myself on June, so thanks again to the person that suggested this idea.

And this is all from me for March. I thank you all personally for the feedback that you've been willing to provide. I will definitely try to keep it in mind for my own future rounds, and I hope this feedback will also be useful to other hosts. See you all on June for OTJ!

[Ryder]

Congrats on March Leo, it was a big success

Obviously it was me who would welcome going even harder on the rules familiarity. Noted, I (we?) am in the minority. This brings me back to the idea of having a separate, truly hardcore card contest, with blind submissions and all. Who knows, maybe a time will come when it clarifies for me and it will become a thing

[bravelion83]

Congrats on March Leo, it was a big success

Thank you. Yes, it went well, but messing up with that Subchallenge in the final round still burns me...

Obviously it was me who would welcome going even harder on the rules familiarity.

Yes, I can confirm it was you indeed. I was talking to you in those sentences in that specific part.

Noted, I (we?) am in the minority. This brings me back to the idea of having a separate, truly hardcore card contest, with blind submissions and all. Who knows, maybe a time will come when it clarifies for me and it will become a thing

Look, I'm torn on that. I can see both sides. Again, I see this all the time in real life high school classes where I teach: not every student is at the same level of knowledge or has the same pace of learning, and somehow (it's not easy), you still have to teach your subject in a way that appeals to all of them, from one extreme to the other. Here it's the same: I personally could withstand very easily going deeply technical, like for example "design a card with an ability that generates a continous effect that applies in layer 6", or "design a card that has an ability that works only on the stack", or "design a card that doubles or ends a specific step, phase, or the turn", or "design a card that restarts the game without putting any cards in exile", etc..., as probably would you, but people who know the rules less well? They probably wouldn't even understand what I'm asking for in that challenge, and the MCC also has to appeal to them, and they have all the rights in the world to have easily understandable challenges. If you want to create some kind of new contest with highly technical challenges like the examples I've provided here, and maybe with blind submissions too, we can talk about it, and I would gladly help with that as I believe my love for the logical system that is the Comprehensive Rules of Magic is well-known by now. But it wouldn't be the MCC. It would be a different contest. One that I'd probably like personally, but still a different contest.

[Ink-Treader]

My April MCC Round 2 judgments are complete.

[shullz]

It doesn't change the order of the scores anyway, but some clarifications:

The cost reduction ability is technically correct... but it would be printed to state "Equip abilities" costing less. The only activated abilities that would get cheaper under these conditions either deal damage or tap, which one usually isn't looking to use on a teammate's stuff.

I just copied the rules text of Bladegraft Aspirant here, because it's a quite recent example of this type of effect. This way reconfigure costs, which, if I'm not mistaken, don't count as equip costs, become cheaper too. (Also other attach abilities similar to Cranial Plating, if there are any that don't require colored mana.)

(2.5/3) Quality - Pretty sure you can just say "target a creature a teammate controls".

The main challenge reads:
"Design a permanent card with "your team" or "your teammate(s)" in its rules text."

I chose this wording so I wouldn't risk point reduction for the main challenge, but as I'm writing this I notice that I already satisfied the challenge with the first ability anyway, so that was an oversight on my side.

[marioguy3]

In response to what bravelion83 mentioned, I'd personally enjoy playing in some sort of monthly (or bi-monthly) design contest based on technical rules design (although always only as a player). I think it could open up cool designs to appreciate the scope of the rules more. The only two problems I could see with it are: 1: Who would host/judge the entries other than bravelion83? 2: Yet another new contest could clutter up the custom games thread and make harder to find threads for already existing contests (namely the CCL). But I would play if it ever became true, like a 2025 dream.

[Raptorchan]

@Ink-Treader: by the way, main challenge was "Design a permanent card", so not all cards in your bracket pass this challenge, even.
And to make it more fair, personally I forgot to make my card legendary...

[Ink-Treader]

@Ink-Treader: by the way, main challenge was "Design a permanent card", so not all cards in your bracket pass this challenge, even.
And to make it more fair, personally I forgot to make my card legendary...

Fortunately doesn't alter who advances, but I do seem to be slipping up a bit this month. Going to have to redouble my efforts for the remaining rounds.

[bravelion83]

Who would host/judge the entries other than bravelion83?

@Ryder for sure I believe. If other people with high rules knowledge would be interested, they're more than welcome to speak up.

But I would play if it ever became true, like a 2025 dream.

If there are enough people interested, maybe even before 2025.

[void_nothing]

Real life has kept me from finishing my April round 2 judgments - apologies, they will be done tomorrow and I will adjust deadlines a little bit to compensate.

[Lorn Asbord Schutta]

@void_nothing What does it mean to "care about the current plane"? Refering to its subtype, for instance: "As long as the current plane is Dominaria..."; refering to its name, "As long as the current plane is named Academy at Tolaria West..."; or maybe something specific-card agnostic, for instance: "If you began the turn with the current plane, instead..."?

[void_nothing]

@void_nothing What does it mean to "care about the current plane"? Refering to its subtype, for instance: "As long as the current plane is Dominaria..."; refering to its name, "As long as the current plane is named Academy at Tolaria West..."; or maybe something specific-card agnostic, for instance: "If you began the turn with the current plane, instead..."?

Any of the examples cited fits the challenge. It's pretty conceptual and loose.

[Komandon]

@void_nothing mentioned in the second round interest in the naming of my entry. I like to give myself an extra challenge when I make cards in even non-contest thread. Sometimes words in other languages, anagrams, a reference to a real life event, place or thing etc for names.

This isn't any attempt to change the mind of the results. The name was only .5 off. The mechanic was a bigger hit but I'm ok with it because it was fun to envision.

Rubik Acton, Soul-singer is based on a few things. The theme was team. First time that came to mind was Smells Like Team Spirit by Nirvana. I didn't feel right using the word Nirvana in the card since I like to pretend I'm in R&D and doubt magic would do today cards based on major parts of religions that's not more common in secular word use too such as celestial, heaven or hell. Unlike the Arabian Nights and Dark sets. I was going to do an anagram but none with Nirvana looked right. So went with an anagram of Kurt Cobain. The reason for soul-singer isn't due to his death. Though I did go with an Imperial Mask effect. (I really liked the Future Sight set.). I was going for a nod to the card Vega, the Watcher. I didn't go with the battlebond mechanics for team because of this thought that came to mind. How some music videos and musical scenes in cartoons have a character doing kinda a duet with themselves. Even if it's a reflection or vision. That's why I made it act like that and I liked the word soul being part of it. Originally it was going to be Soul-dancer but that would be a performer type. So singer for a bard. Couldn't see a life gain effect working with the vision of a music scene in my head and wanted black and white to be a bit of the reflection or it's shadow in a mirror so an enemy pair guild.

This was a fun month.

[slimytrout]

I think no one has claimed the May MCC yet? I had a fun idea so unless I'm wrong I'm going to sign up for that.

[void_nothing]

I think no one has claimed the May MCC yet? I had a fun idea so unless I'm wrong I'm going to sign up for that.

Nope, it's all open! Leo has June for the OTJ theme, so May can be all yours. Glad to have you!

[Ink-Treader]

My March MCC Round 3 judgments are done.

Definitely an interesting challenge with interesting considerations.