The MCC Discussion Thread

[bravelion83]

My March Round 3 judgments are done.

I did think I might have caught something that may have made this a more standard 3 person finals, but considered that it does have functional purpose, so 4 way final it (potentially) is!

I'm also fine with a final round with three players, I was just pointing out how unusual and nostalgic it would be if we end up with four players in the final round. Years ago, that was the norm, I've seen even five players in an MCC final round in the faraway past. Anyway, it doesn't really matter how many players we have in the final round.

Most of all, thank you so much for keeping the fast timing perfectly. We did it again, and it's the third time! Three rounds out of three! You can't imagine how excited I am that we are actually proving that what we did in January is indeed repeatable! And I do have to thank you for that.

Everyone, if you have something to say about our judgments, you all have more than one day again! Remember: third parties involved = pm.

[Caspernicus]

Also, one day somebody will have to explain me the difference between weave and escalate because I don't see it honestly.

That's escalate, with no functional difference as far as I can tell. Other than that, the colors are appropriate, and rare is correct just for the mass suspecting.

Honestly, I don't know how I missed that escalate existed. Had I known about it, I would've just used that.

That being said, there is indeed one functional difference between weave and escalate, if I know my rulings right (which I'm not great at, but still). If I remember correctly, you must choose modes on modal cards as they resolve—as in, before your opponents can react to it. Because of the way that escalate is worded, you would have to pay any additional costs for additional modes before the spell has the chance to be reacted to. Weave here is different, and functions more like entwine: you don't pay the cost until you are resolving the spell, because you are choosing additional modes after the original mode (instead of at the same time). Functionally, this means your opponents are reacting to only the first mode you've chosen of the spell, and should it be countered, you would have only spent 3 mana instead of the excess for the bonus modes. A trivial difference, really, but this makes this version of the effect more like entwine (hence why it is at the bottom of the textbox, instead of the top like escalate). I don't think this will make much of a difference for the round, as Subject16 did a fantastic job, but I thought I'd attempt to explain the difference since I thought of it.

Let me tell you, there is a massive amount of disappointment in learning that a mechanic you thought was entirely original was already done. I'll see you all next month!

[Raptorchan]

Congratulations @slimytrout, winner of UB MCC contest!
Really enjoyed all three final designs, and I think all three deserve to be printed someday.

[Lorn Asbord Schutta]

Also, one day somebody will have to explain me the difference between weave and escalate because I don't see it honestly.

That's escalate, with no functional difference as far as I can tell. Other than that, the colors are appropriate, and rare is correct just for the mass suspecting.

Honestly, I don't know how I missed that escalate existed. Had I known about it, I would've just used that.

That being said, there is indeed one functional difference between weave and escalate, if I know my rulings right (which I'm not great at, but still). If I remember correctly, you must choose modes on modal cards as they resolve—as in, before your opponents can react to it. Because of the way that escalate is worded, you would have to pay any additional costs for additional modes before the spell has the chance to be reacted to. Weave here is different, and functions more like entwine: you don't pay the cost until you are resolving the spell, because you are choosing additional modes after the original mode (instead of at the same time). Functionally, this means your opponents are reacting to only the first mode you've chosen of the spell, and should it be countered, you would have only spent 3 mana instead of the excess for the bonus modes. A trivial difference, really, but this makes this version of the effect more like entwine (hence why it is at the bottom of the textbox, instead of the top like escalate). I don't think this will make much of a difference for the round, as Subject16 did a fantastic job, but I thought I'd attempt to explain the difference since I thought of it.

Let me tell you, there is a massive amount of disappointment in learning that a mechanic you thought was entirely original was already done. I'll see you all next month!

I am pretty sure that entwine doesn't work like you described. 702.42a says that entwine is an additional cost you may pay and points towards 601.2b and 601.2f–h. 601.2b says that you need to announce your intention of paying any additional costs at the moment you announce casting a spell, before paying anything yet. It also mentions that you need to choose your mode choice if the spell is modal and points toward 700.2. 700.2a says that the controller of a modal spell chooses the mode(s) as part of casting that spell.
I think it is possible to achieve your intent with weave without big hacking of Comprehensive Rules if you define weave as a special action that doesn't use stack (similiar to turning face-down permanent face up), but can change spell's qualities as the resolution of that spell begins. But this is pure speculation on my part.
If I am wrong, I will be gladly proven such.

[haywire]

bravelion83

Show

Hide

Balance 2/3 - The order of the effects is very relevant in this card. First exile, then suspect. The creature you get to exile must be one that you've already suspected before via other means. It the same difference that there is between Preordain and Serum Visions. This allow the mana cost to be as low as it can, but I think it's still too low, especially for an uncommon. This area is to be judged with contemporary Standard in mind, so in this case you have the whole MKM set filled up with ways to suspect creatures. It shouldn't be too hard to suspect the creature you want to exile before casting this spell, especially in constructed. In a constructed deck built around the suspect mechanic this can essentially read as just "exile target creature". Two copies of this also cause the second one to just exile the creature. In MKM limited that's also possible and rather easy to do. I would have probably raised both the mana cost and the flashback cost by one generic mana. As is, definitely playable in limited with potential easy constructed implications. Being in casual or multiplayer doesn't change any of this.

Just to give my perspective on why I costed it so aggressively, which was mainly based on what I noticed in the many many MKM drafts I've played:

I almost see this as a "trap" card for the boros archetype in MKM limited. In most play patterns in limited, boros usually suspects their own creatures with their suspect effects, as they are the aggressor of the format. And, they're typically out-racing the other aggressive archetypes, which means, when you're on the boros plan, suspecting the opposing creature is probably close enough to exiling to win the match, as it simply removes a blocker permanently. So, playing for the exile with this card requires pretty heavy deviation from the proven plan of the best archetype in the format. If you look at the boros decks that have been winning, it's typically the ones that just hard push damage, that wouldn't focus on setting up a removal play, even if it's mana efficient. In my opinion, this is a solid 2-3/5 uncommon for the way boros has developed in the set. Taking 1-2 for the sideboard in case your opponent drops a warping mythic game 1 is reasonable (and it's very strong in the mirror match of course), but you very rarely want this in your main, and giving up a menace attacker is a pretty large cost if you're spending a different suspect effect to enable this. Boros is the best archetype in MKM limited, because it's purely focused on hitting face. A card that detracts from that goal has to be pushed to even be considered playable at a high level.

Similarly for standard: the leading boros convoke decks don't play any dedicated removal in the main. It's not efficient, as they're just trying to spew creatures. They then tend to play some combination of Get Lost, Lantern Flare and the various color haters in the side, but it's typically a deck that boards removal in very lightly, and mostly instant speed options. I just don't think this would see the light of day except as a strong sideboard equalizer in limited, or if standard slows back down significantly, but that doesn't seem super likely to me. I felt like I had to push it from a cost perspective to even give a card like this a chance in the current boros world.

Sorry for the long post, but competitive play is something that I can talk about in with a lot more experience than card creation haha.

As a side note: on the name, I don't love the jokier names either, but we live in a world of puns and references in pretty much every set these days, so I felt like it's in some ways the new standard. (Have you seen Maro's spoiler for thunder junction? it's all puns/wild west references!)

Edit to add: I'm not necessarily asking for points back here; I was personally on the opposite side of a similar evaluation, thinking it was slightly weak given the current boros, but I just wanted to air my thoughts.

[bravelion83]

@Caspernicus

you must choose modes on modal cards as they resolve

Here is one problem. This is wrong, choosing modes is part of the process of casting the spell. Part of the many choices you make in the second step to be precise. In other words, you choose modes while casting the spell, not on resolution.

as in, before your opponents can react to it.

This is the opposite of what you wrote right before, but this is the true one. Yes, you choose modes as part of casting the spell and your opponent isn't able to do anything until you have finished casting the spell (or if you want to be more technical, until the next time they receive priority, which is after you've finished casting the spell. Nobody gets priority during the process of casting a spell.)

Because of the way that escalate is worded, you would have to pay any additional costs for additional modes before the spell has the chance to be reacted to.

Also true, but there is nothing specific about escalate here, it's just how additional costs work. Determining, locking in, and then paying a spell's total cost are all steps of the same process of casting a spell. In the second step, the same when you choose modes, you declare your intention to pay any additional costs, then in later steps you'll first determine the total cost (this is where you actually get to add the additional costs), and then pay the total cost.

Weave here is different, and functions more like entwine: you don't pay the cost until you are resolving the spell, because you are choosing additional modes after the original mode (instead of at the same time).

Something doesn't add up here. Even if you assume that weave is a cost that you pay on resolution (which is not the norm but I think it could be done if you want), "choosing additional modes" is something you do on casting anyway. Again, part of the second step of the process of casting a spell. You can't choose additional modes on resolution. You can check how many modes have been chosen on resolution though, and that why I said I think paying the weave cost on resolution could be done: you check on resolution the number of modes that have been chosen on casting, let's call it N, and on resolution you have to pay the weave cost N-1 times. It would be very complicated and probably cause several rules headaches, but it wouldn't be impossible. What's impossible is choosing modes on resolution, regardless if additional or not, as that's part of casting the spell. Escalate is just the same idea but executed better, with everything happening on casting all those potential headaches are avoided.

Functionally, this means your opponents are reacting to only the first mode you've chosen of the spell, and should it be countered, you would have only spent 3 mana instead of the excess for the bonus modes.

This is just impossible. It would mean your opponent is responding (technical correct term, not "reacting") DURING the resolution of a spell, but no player can do anything while a spell is resolving (technically: no player gets priority during the resolution of a spell or ability), and as I explained before, you wouldn't be able to choose modes on resolution anyway, only on casting. I think I get an idea of what you wanted: something dynamic, where the action goes back and forth between you and your opponent, and all of the during the resolution of the spell. But that's impossible to do due to how timing and priority work: nobody (including you) can do anything while your spell is resolving. If you want to do something, you either have to do it before the process of casting a spell even begins (with you taking the spell from wherever it is and putting it on the stack) or after it's done (with all choices made, all targets picked, and all costs paid). For example, it's the reason why when you copy a modal spell you get the same mode(s) as the original spell and you can't change them, unlike targets (and even that, only if you're allowed to do it, but the card that lets you copy the spell usually gives you permission to do that), as the modes have been chosen during the CASTING (not the resolution) of the original spell, that by the way hasn't even resolved yet when you copy it.

A trivial difference, really, but this makes this version of the effect more like entwine (hence why it is at the bottom of the textbox, instead of the top like escalate).

Talking about entwine doesn't change anything of this. Entwine is also an additional cost working on casting and not on resolution (like all additional costs). Entwine and escalate are very similar actually, almost the same: they both work on casting, only that entwine is "if you pay this cost, choose ALL modes", it's all or nothing, while escalate is "if you pay this cost, choose one additional mode", allowing you to choose some modes but not all. On a card with only two modes they are identical. You start seeing the difference if the card has three modes: you choose one mode. If you pay entwine (technically if you announce your intention to pay entwine because actual payments are made later in the process), you get all three modes. It's either one mode or three modes, with entwine you have no way to choose only two modes out of the three. Escalate gives you that chance instead: just pay the escalate cost once and you can choose two of the three modes. Or you can pay the escalate cost twice and get the same result as entwine. Essentially, escalate is a more flexible entwine for modal spells with three modes or more. That's all the difference there is between entwine and escalate, and please notice that all of this happens on casting and not on resolution.

I thought I'd attempt to explain the difference since I thought of it.

As I've already said, now with this explanation I think I've got what you were going for. Unfortunately, I don't think it's possible to do in the rules. The closest you can get is that version I've suggested above where you pay on resolution a cost based on how many modes you've chosen on casting.

Let me tell you, there is a massive amount of disappointment in learning that a mechanic you thought was entirely original was already done. I'll see you all next month!

I feel you. It happened to me as well, only that I think I always caught it before actually posting the card. That's the one piece of advice I can give you: check before posting if your idea of something very similar has already been done for real. You can use your favorite Magic card database to do that check. It's very good to see that this didn't take away from you the will to try again, so yes, see you next month!


@haywire

bravelion83

Show

Hide

Balance 2/3 - The order of the effects is very relevant in this card. First exile, then suspect. The creature you get to exile must be one that you've already suspected before via other means. It the same difference that there is between Preordain and Serum Visions. This allow the mana cost to be as low as it can, but I think it's still too low, especially for an uncommon. This area is to be judged with contemporary Standard in mind, so in this case you have the whole MKM set filled up with ways to suspect creatures. It shouldn't be too hard to suspect the creature you want to exile before casting this spell, especially in constructed. In a constructed deck built around the suspect mechanic this can essentially read as just "exile target creature". Two copies of this also cause the second one to just exile the creature. In MKM limited that's also possible and rather easy to do. I would have probably raised both the mana cost and the flashback cost by one generic mana. As is, definitely playable in limited with potential easy constructed implications. Being in casual or multiplayer doesn't change any of this.

Just to give my perspective on why I costed it so aggressively, which was mainly based on what I noticed in the many many MKM drafts I've played: (explanation follows)

Online, obviously. In my area, consider yourself lucky if you find one store that does a draft maybe every other week, and even then it's far from a given that the draft starts. I've found myself ALONE in an LGS to draft MKM just last Saturday. Obviously, the store owner told me after about 20 minutes from the scheduled start of the draft that I could just leave. I prefer playing in person much more than playing online, and as a result I probably don't know the format as well as you based on how detailed your explanation is. I'm still actively looking for MKM drafts around here, but the next is on the 29th, almost a week away. If you're not a Commander or Pauper player (and I don't play either), then constructed in person play has literally died around here, with the one single exception of a store doing Modern once a week. But just forget about Pioneer or Standard. They're talking about how they are succeeding in revitalizing Standard and how all their numbers about Standard are going up. Well, maybe in the US. Certainly not here. You can still play online of course, but it's not the same thing, at least for me. You must have much more experience than me in MKM limited, that's all in my opinion.

As a side note: on the name, I don't love the jokier names either, but we live in a world of puns and references in pretty much every set these days, so I felt like it's in some ways the new standard. (Have you seen Maro's spoiler for thunder junction? it's all puns/wild west references!)

Yes, I've seen it, even though remember that he handpicks the things to put into his teasers, and he obviously does so in a specific way to showcase the main theme of the set. I read Blogatog everyday, and often multiple times a day. I've also noticed the trend you're talking about on real cards, and honestly I don't like it, but that's just me.

Edit to add: I'm not necessarily asking for points back here; I was personally on the opposite side of a similar evaluation, thinking it was slightly weak given the current boros, but I just wanted to air my thoughts.

No problems, we're just having a civil conversation. Thoughts are always welcome. Thank you for yours.

[Caspernicus]

@bravelion83, @Lorn Asbord Schutta

Well, guess I'm wrong. I'm trying to find the site that gave me that idea, and I can't find it, so I don't know how I got the idea the rules worked that way for entwine. The only thing I can find that would even suggest a difference between the two at this point is that "Using the entwine ability follows the rules for choosing modes and paying additional costs in rules 601.2b and 601.2f–h.", while "Paying a spell's escalate cost follows the rules for paying additional costs in rules 601.2f–h.", which doesn't mention rule 601.2b, but I can't imagine that actually makes any difference, as both have to follow rule 700.2, right? I don't know, I thought they were different somehow.

[haywire]

Online, obviously. In my area, consider yourself lucky if you find one store that does a draft maybe every other week, and even then it's far from a given that the draft starts. I've found myself ALONE in an LGS to draft MKM just last Saturday. Obviously, the store owner told me after about 20 minutes from the scheduled start of the draft that I could just leave. I prefer playing in person much more than playing online, and as a result I probably don't know the format as well as you based on how detailed your explanation is. I'm still actively looking for MKM drafts around here, but the next is on the 29th, almost a week away. If you're not a Commander or Pauper player (and I don't play either), then constructed in person play has literally died around here, with the one single exception of a store doing Modern once a week. But just forget about Pioneer or Standard. They're talking about how they are succeeding in revitalizing Standard and how all their numbers about Standard are going up. Well, maybe in the US. Certainly not here. You can still play online of course, but it's not the same thing, at least for me. You must have much more experience than me in MKM limited, that's all in my opinion.

I play a mix of online and in-person (though I loathe bo1, it doesn't feel like magic to me without the counterplay of sideboarding). I live in a big East Cost US city, and am fortunate enough to be within a couple miles of 4 stores that fire weekly drafts, so I basically have as much access to draft as I could want. They've also hosted 2 limited RCQs for MKM, one of which I managed to attend (and top 8'd, which was cool). Standard... is tough. I think that the store I go to most frequently manages to fire standard every FNM, but just barely, and they're a store that consistently gets 2-3 pods for wednesday night drafts. I've seen a fair amount of Pioneer around here, it seems like the group of people that used to play standard but are tired of it (which is where I class myself) are gravitating towards that.

Sorry that it sounds like you don't have much in-person access in your area, I definitely agree that online is a pale imitation, though I will say that I think it's less about the fact that it's online then that it's so impersonal; I still greatly enjoy playing online with friends in a voice channel, it feels pretty similar to playing in person in that scenario. MKM has been a really fun draft format for me, though it has its hitches like anything else.

[bravelion83]

@haywire

though I loathe bo1, it doesn't feel like magic to me without the counterplay of sideboarding

100% agree.

4 stores that fire weekly drafts, so I basically have as much access to draft as I could want

I envy you. Just that.

the store I go to most frequently manages to fire standard every FNM, but just barely

At least the tournament actually happens, which given my experience here it's a lot and only makes my envying grow...

I think it's less about the fact that it's online then that it's so impersonal

Yes, I totally agree here too. I have nothing against online play itself, it's just that it feels like you're playing against a computer, not a real person. And in-person play is one of the strengths of Magic in my opinion. Well, at least online is still better than nothing... Given that you say you're from the US East coast, you're convincing me even more that when they talk about numbers growing they essentially mean in the US. But while one of the most important countries, the US are not the whole world.

@Caspernicus

The only thing I can find that would even suggest a difference between the two at this point is that "Using the entwine ability follows the rules for choosing modes and paying additional costs in rules 601.2b and 601.2f–h.", while "Paying a spell's escalate cost follows the rules for paying additional costs in rules 601.2f–h.", which doesn't mention rule 601.2b, but I can't imagine that actually makes any difference, as both have to follow rule 700.2, right?

Correct. I've just checked all those rules references again and yes, this is totally right.

I don't know, I thought they were different somehow.

The only difference is that entwine is "pay this cost to choose all" while escalate is "pay this cost to choose one more". If a spell has escalate and N modes, if you pay the escalate cost N-1 times you have literally the same effect as entwine. That's it. Nothing more.

[bravelion83]

The final round for March is up, together with the final episode of my story. I used spoilers in spoilers to hide the solution of the case and my explanation of the intended mystery. Clarifications and the pdf version of the story are missing at the moment, and will be up as soon as possible, working on them right now. After that (not sure if tonight or in the next days), I will also publish the annotated version of my story with all intended clues and red herrings highlighted and explained.

[haywire]

@bravelion83 just for fun, but I would like to point out that subchallenge 1 is impossible; while you might not be able to achieve a "to solve" condition the turn a case enters, you can always get to the solved state the turn it enters, as shown, for a given Case of the Unsolveable that has some "To Solve" that meets subchallenge 1:

• You control Case of the Gateway Express, Opalescence, and 3 creatures without summoning sickness.
• You cast 2 Case of the Unsolveables.
• You cast Cytoshape, turning one Case of the Unsolveable into Case of the Gateway Express. You attack with 3 creatures, solving both cases.
• You move to end step, allowing both Case of the Gateway Expresses to be solved.
• After this has happened, you cast Cytoshape again, turning the temporary Case of the Gateway Express back into Case of the Unsolveable

As solved is a designation that persists between any characteristic changes as per 719.3b, you now have a Case of the Unsolveable that has been solved the same turn it entered the battlefield. There are quite a few similar situations that basically revolve around turning it into a different case, giving it the solved designation, then turning it back.

This is, of course, incredibly pedantic, and obviously not what the subchallenge actually refers to in spirit, but because it just says "can't be solved" and not "it's To Solve condition can't be met", subchallenge 1 is technically impossible. Again, this is not a serious critique, just a fun jank rules combo that appeals to my johnny brain.

[haywire]

@bravelion83 on a more serious note for subchallenge 1, do we only have to consider black-border situations? I have a potential option, but an un-card (not one of the ones legal in commander) breaks it.

[slimytrout]

@bravelion83 I am also curious about what the level of strictness is on subchallenge 1, since as haywire so aptly demonstrated above there are always going to be corner cases. Does the card I submitted satisfy it? It generally can't be solved on the turn it's played, but obviously the existence of cards like Stifle and Elesh Norn, Mother of Machines means that you can't fully rely on a card's own ETB to prevent it from being solved. Is that the intention of the challenge?

[bravelion83]

This is, of course, incredibly pedantic, and obviously not what the subchallenge actually refers to in spirit, but because it just says "can't be solved" and not "it's To Solve condition can't be met",

This is exactly the point. I didn't even think about combos involving other cards. This goes to show one thing I always tell when I'm mentoring someone new as a host: no matter how you write a challenge, remember that players will ALWAYS try to break it and it's your job to make the intended boundaries as clear and unbreakable as possible. In this case, all I meant was exactly what haywire points out. Now I'm on mobile, but as soon as I'm at my pc I will reword Subchallenge 1 to a version inspired by what haywire suggested: "Your Case's To Solve ability can't possibly resolve (and thus make your Case solved) on the same turn the Case has entered the battlefield." That's what I've always meant, so to me it's nothing more than a clarification. Ignore all possible external cards or combos when evaluating if your card passes Subchallenge 1.

EDIT - Done.

@bravelion83 on a more serious note for subchallenge 1, do we only have to consider black-border situations? I have a potential option, but an un-card (not one of the ones legal in commander) breaks it.

@haywire Yes, only black border, as always unless specified in the challenges, and this is not the case here.

@bravelion83 I am also curious about what the level of strictness is on subchallenge 1, since as haywire so aptly demonstrated above there are always going to be corner cases. Does the card I submitted satisfy it? It generally can't be solved on the turn it's played, but obviously the existence of cards like Stifle and Elesh Norn, Mother of Machines means that you can't fully rely on a card's own ETB to prevent it from being solved. Is that the intention of the challenge?

@slimytrout The intention is that the Subchallenge only cares about solving the Case via the "To solve" ability. Ignore any interactions with any existing cards (like the two you mention) and any possible combos involving cards other than your Case (like the only haywire points out a few posts above). Your card by itself is what you should consider for Subchallenge 1, it's all that matters.

[haywire]

@bravelion83

@slimytrout The intention is that the Subchallenge only cares about solving the Case via the "To solve" ability. Ignore any interactions with any existing cards (like the two you mention) and any possible combos involving cards other than your Case (like the only haywire points out a few posts above). Your card by itself is what you should consider for Subchallenge 1, it's all that matters.

So this is just saying does the card solve itself in a vacuum? Wouldn't nearly every existing case pass then? They all require other cards to solve, such as Case of the Gateway Express requiring 3 creatures, or Case of the Filched Falcon requiring other artifacts. I'm even more confused now.

[bravelion83]

@bravelion83

@slimytrout The intention is that the Subchallenge only cares about solving the Case via the "To solve" ability. Ignore any interactions with any existing cards (like the two you mention) and any possible combos involving cards other than your Case (like the only haywire points out a few posts above). Your card by itself is what you should consider for Subchallenge 1, it's all that matters.

So this is just saying does the card solve itself in a vacuum? Wouldn't nearly every existing case pass then? They all require other cards to solve, such as Case of the Gateway Express requiring 3 creatures, or Case of the Filched Falcon requiring other artifacts. I'm even more confused now.

@haywire The "To solve" condition can check other cards, spells, and/or permanents you control. What my quote means is that you should ignore things that can interact with your Case in the moment it triggers or resolves, like countering the ability for example, and you should also ignore alternative ways to make your Case solved via any combo involving other existing cards, like the one you point out with Opalescence and the double Cytoshape. Ignore combos and any external sources that might interfere with your Case's "To solve" ability triggering and resolving. That's what it means.

[Subject16]

@bravelion83 Can you confirm whether or not my submission qualifies for subchallenge 1? I am aware that it is possible to solve it on the same turn it enters the battlefield if you cheat it in with something like Planar Bridge or Sun Titan's attack trigger. I'm aware it requires specific other cards to make work.

Similarly, does it qualify for subchallenge 2.2? This is more to check that the 'land' portion of nonland is suitable.

[bravelion83]

I am aware that it is possible to solve it on the same turn it enters the battlefield if you cheat it in with something like Planar Bridge or Sun Titan's attack trigger.

Again, ignore combos with existing cards. If you have to mention other cards like you do with Planar Bridge and Sun Titan, then it doesn't matter for Subchallenge 1.

As for Subchallenge 2 mode 2, saying "nonland" is NOT the same as mentioning the "land" card type.

[haywire]

@bravelion83 I'm very confused by this interpretation of subchallenge 1. Every case, by nature, requires other cards to solve. I'm not wrapping my head around what distinguishes "needs 3 creatures" in Case of the Gateway Express from "needs a way to put onto battlefield without casting" in Subject16's entry. Both are relatively generic, can be accomplished in myriad ways within the game, and neither is something I would consider a particular "combo".

[bravelion83]

@bravelion83 I'm very confused by this interpretation of subchallenge 1. Every case, by nature, requires other cards to solve. I'm not wrapping my head around what distinguishes "needs 3 creatures" in Case of the Gateway Express from "needs a way to put onto battlefield without casting" in Subject16's entry. Both are relatively generic, can be accomplished in myriad ways within the game, and neither is something I would consider a particular "combo".

For Subchallenge 1, you evaluate the "To solve" condition, remembering that in the CR it's actually the intervening if clause of a triggered ability ("At the beginning of your end step, if [insert "To solve" contition here] and this Case is not solved, this Case becomes solved." This is a triggered ability, so to have its effect (the Case becoming solved), it has to first trigger (at the beginning of your end step) and then resolve. The check for the intervening if is made at both times and the condition must be true at both times for the ability to trigger and resolve. This is the technical way solving Cases works. What I am telling you is that nothing that's not also on your own card (such as any existing real Magic cards) can interfere with this process while it's happening, that is nothing external from your card can interfere with the ability triggering and resolving. This means you can exclude things like Stifle and Elesh Norn. Mother of Machines. The ability that stays behind your "To solve" condition will always try to trigger and resolve. Only other abilities of your same cards are considered able to modify the trigger or resolution of that ability. Nothing else can.

Another thing you should also ignore are any combos that result in your Case becoming solved via means other than its own hidden triggered ability that I've just talked about.
In the end, you can just say you ignore all existing real Magic cards interfering with the ability that solves your Case. They still exist if they are included in the "To solve" condition, but there can't be any interfering from the outside (from the inside is allowed, that is other abilities of your same Case can do that instead) during the process of checking the "To solve" condition at end of turn. Other cards are considered not to exist only if they interfere with your Case solving, messing with the trigger and/or resolution of the ability that checks the "To solve" condition, or if they form a combo that solves the Case without passing through the normal check of a "To solve" condition on a Case card.

Hope this helps.

EDIT:

can be accomplished in myriad ways within the game

Only one of those myriad ways count: the ordinary one via the "To solve" condition. Any other way doesn't count for Subchallenge 1.

[Subject16]

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?

I think since the subchallenge calls for not possibly being able to solve the case (emphasis on possibly) we want to be clear on the intent since MtG is a game where almost anything is possible with the right combination of cards. It may be worth rewording the challenge to maybe stipulate that it's intended to be in a vacuum?

[haywire]

EDIT:

can be accomplished in myriad ways within the game

Only one of those myriad ways count: the ordinary one via the "To solve" condition. Any other way doesn't count for Subchallenge 1.

In my example, I was saying that there are myriad ways to play @Subject16's submission such that it is solved, via its own "To Solve" ability, the turn that it enters, without interfering directly with the "To Solve" ability in any way. (Also, Subject16, I hope it's ok that I'm using your submission for this, it's just the easiest tangible example, not a critique or anything. If you want me to stop referencing your submission just lmk and I'll edit it out.)

Other cards are considered not to exist only if they interfere with your Case solving, messing with the trigger and/or resolution of the ability that checks the "To solve" condition, or if they form a combo that solves the Case without passing through the normal check of a "To solve" condition on a Case card.

Following these rules, Subject16's does not pass, correct? Planar Bridge does not 1) interfere with the case solving, 2) mess with the trigger and/or resolution of the triggered "To Solve" ability, or 3) forms a combo that solves the Case without passing through its "To Solve".

If that is the case, it seems very arbitrary to me to differentiate between "putting a permanent into play without casting it" and "countering an ability", which is the corner case that causes slimytrout's to not pass. (Again, @slimytrout if you prefer that I don't talk about your submission, lmk and I will remove it, but I am just trying to get clarity.)

If that is not the case, I still have no idea where the line is drawn. Does Case of the Stashed Skeleton pass this subchallenge, because the only way to solve it the turn it enters is by countering its etb or using a "specific combo" like a sac outlet?

I dm'ed you yesterday with what I believe are the only 2 possible versions of a "To Solve" ability that have no corner cases that could possibly cause their ability to resolve the turn they enter. In my analysis, that is the "hard line" for subchallenge 1. I would just like to know exactly what adjustments are being made to that to soften said line, because the ones given so far aren't computing for me.

[bravelion83]

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.

It may be worth rewording the challenge to maybe stipulate that it's intended to be in a vacuum?

If I find a better wording, probably. I'm trying so hard to make the idea of "don't consider other cards" that looked so natural to me pass and I'm not managing it in any way. As I've forgotten that we're in one of the two periods of the year (the other being in November) when the time zone difference between me and the US gets messed up because of daylight savings time starting (or ending) differently than in Italy, and I've missed most of the OTJ debut as a result (9 am Pacific are normally 6 pm for me, but I tuned in at 6 and the show has already started at my 5 pm...), I spent the last hour or so designing sample cards that meet all challenges for this round. I have five such sample cards. I planned to show them after the design deadline to avoid taking potential ideas away for you, but maybe they could help clarify this point. Do you all prefer to see them now even if it means potentially stepping on the toes of design ideas for those who haven't submitted yet?

@haywire It's easy, you keep thinking about interactions with other existing cards while you shouldn't think about them at all. What if I say it this way: I've cast a spell that causes you (or your judge) to forget all the existing cards in Magic history while evaluating Subchallenge 1. A temporary amnesia spell, and you're under that spell's effect. If you've forgotten all the existing cards, all that remains is, as Subject16 correctly said, your Case card in a vacuum. Can your Case, that you've normally cast earlier this turn, be solved at end of turn while you're under this spell of temporary amnesia that I've cast on you? The answer to this question must be no for Subchallege 1 to be met. Please notice that I haven't mentioned any existing cards in this reasoning. That's what you should also do. If you have to mention a specific other existing card, then you're not looking at your card the same way Subchallenge 1 asks you to do. I believe in this case it would be especially beneficial for me to show my sample cards. If you want to see them, just tell me, but be aware that there is the risk that some of the design ideas I used for them might overlap with yours. If you're willing to take that risk, I can show them to you. You would probably find a way to break them too if you use existing cards, but for the purposes of Subchallenge 1 only what's on your card itself counts, nothing esle can influence the solving process from the outside. Again, do you all want me to show my sample cards?

[haywire]

What if I say it this way: I've cast a spell that causes you (or your judge) to forget all the existing cards in Magic history while evaluating Subchallenge 1.

I'm so sorry, but I am still lost. By this logic, I would argue that Case of the Gateway Express also passes, as it requires other cards in Magic history to be solved the turn it comes in, or any turn for that matter.

[bravelion83]

What if I say it this way: I've cast a spell that causes you (or your judge) to forget all the existing cards in Magic history while evaluating Subchallenge 1.

I'm so sorry, but I am still lost. By this logic, I would argue that Case of the Gateway Express also passes, as it requires other cards in Magic history to be solved the turn it comes in, or any turn for that matter.

You ignore the interaction with any existing cards but you don't ignore the board. Look, at this point I'm just showing the sample cards in spoiler tags so that everyone can choose whether to look at them or not:

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.