The MCC Discussion Thread

[Ryder]

It was great indeed, it inspired me to make my Squee for CCL
Congrats Legend.

[bravelion83]

Round 3 for January is up.

[Gateways7]

For Subchallenge 2 of the new MCC, does reminder text count as rules text? Asking since one of the mechanics requires a mana symbol in the reminder text.

[bravelion83]

For Subchallenge 2 of the new MCC, does reminder text count as rules text? Asking since one of the mechanics requires a mana symbol in the reminder text.

No, reminder text is not rules text. You can have all the mana symbols you want in reminder text. That's relevant for both escape and devotion.

[Ryder]

[mention]Jimmy Groove[/mention] Your Round 2 card's scores are in. Decent card, but rules are rules.

[bravelion83]

Official brackets for round 3 have been posted in the round thread.

EDIT: My judgments for Round 3 are done.

[Icarii]

My peofing skills seem to have gone down the gutter. Im certainly getting annoyed losing based solely on quality. Will have to fix that in the future.

[Raptorchan]

[mention]Sojourner Dusk[/mention]
[mention]Ryder[/mention]
Okay, since no one of you guys got what Theriad is meant to be, I have to explain it a bit. The Theriad is a story that revolves around Elspeth during the events of the first Theros block. It can be summarized in three major events that were represented with three Challenger Decks related to their respective sets.
I - Face the Hydra, about fighting Polukranos (counters can represent both Hero's strength and Hydra as well.
II - Battle the Horde, a great battle against the minotaurs of Mogis (that's why it says "until your next turn) - the battle was mostly defensive.
III - Defeat a God, that's why it slightly resembles Deicide.

Well, tough luck I guess.

[bravelion83]

The final round for January is up.

[Ryder]

[mention]Raptorchan[/mention] Sure, now it makes sense, but we can't assume people know Magic lore when trying to understand the cards. It's the opposite: The players should learn the lore from the cards

[Gateways7]

That's kind of a weird argument considering things like Kiora Bests the Sea God or pretty much every single Story Spotlight card exist - those are both cards with seemingly random effects but make sense once you read into the lore and figure out what they mean. Giving cards new meaning the deeper someone dives into the lore should be a positive, not a negative.

[Ryder]

It is! But those cards also need proper hooks. When I read Kiora Bests the Sea God I'm incredibly excited and want to learn more. If the card was named something like "The Kiordyssey", I would just skip over the lore.

[slimytrout]

My fellow judges have rightly brought to my attention that the required THB ability is on the token, not the card itself as the Main Challenge required ("Design a card that has a THB mechanic"), the THB mechanic must be on the card itself, not on a token created by the card. And anyway, even if that was allowed, the token has two THB mechanics, Sagas and devotion, and the Main Challenge also specifies that it must be a single mechanic. Because of these reason, unfortunately, this card is DQ'ed. I do not have the time to judge it out of competition with my new temporary job started today. If one or both of my fellow judges want to do so, they are free to do it.

I disagree with this decision for the following reasons:

1) Devotion is a mechanic, not a keyword ability. A card cannot "have" devotion in the technical sense, it can only "use" it, which this card does, even if it's technically via a token it creates.

2) The clarifications clearly state that for a card to qualify as a Saga, it has to actually *be* a saga, not simply interact with them. By this reasoning, a card that makes a Saga token would be impossible to create, since it wouldn't qualify as a Saga but it also couldn't have another mechanic. If I thought that I could have made a Saga token without including devotion, I would have.

I maintain that the card should qualify as using devotion but not as being a saga. If you'd like to deduct some points for not fully meeting the main challenge, I'll accept that, but I don't believe it should be DQ'ed. I would have asked for clarifications in this thread before the deadline, but I was changing my entry in the last 10 hours before the round closed and your previous post had made clear that you wouldn't be online during that time.

[void_nothing]

I've looked at [mention]slimytrout[/mention]'s card and statement and under the circumstances I'd like to ask [mention]bravelion83[/mention] to reverse the disqualification. While the entry may or may not be docked points for violating the spirit of the main challenge (by making a Saga token and thus referencing more than one mechanic) it's clear to me that it follows the letter (the card has an ability that somehow counts devotion, which is exactly one THB mechanic).

As moderator I'm not going to ever force a contest organizer to make a decision one way or another unless the circumstances are exceptional, but I don't want to see someone's fair shot at a final round that they earned their way into taken away when it should not be.

[Ryder]

I maintain that the card should qualify as using devotion but not as being a saga.

Main Challenge - Design a mythic rare card that has exactly one of the four named mechanics from THB (Constellation, devotion, escape, Sagas).

Unfortunately, the challenge does not say a word about being a Saga. It specifies having the mechanic.
Choose any interpretation of the following:
1) Only mechanics on the card as a permanent count
2) All mechanics on the card count

In case of 1), slimytrout's card has 0 of the referenced mechanics, as both of them are on the token.
In case of 2), slimytrout's card has 2 of the referenced mechanics

Either way, it fails the main challenge as it was put very clearly that the submissions are required to have exactly one.
If violating the critical part of a challenge is not considered DQable, probably nothing is.

If you are designing a card whose viablity in terms of the challenge may be questionable, you should always ask in the MCC thread about it. In your case - late design - you should have probably refrained from submitting this risky card.

I've really tried to defend your submission, [mention]slimytrout[/mention], but no line of defense's held here. I"m sorry.

I will judge your card regardless, that's the least I can do.

[void_nothing]

Unfortunately, the challenge does not say a word about being a Saga. It specifies having the mechanic.
Choose any interpretation of the following:
1) Only mechanics on the card as a permanent count
2) All mechanics on the card count

In case of 1), slimytrout's card has 0 of the referenced mechanics, as both of them are on the token.
In case of 2), slimytrout's card has 2 of the referenced mechanics

Except, check the clarifications, which have been the same every round.

"• For Sagas, having the Saga mechanic means that your card is a Saga. It can't simply reference Sagas, it has to be a Saga itself."

Clearly creating a Saga token is "referencing Sagas" and not a "use" of the mechanic as defined by the challenge. I'm sure bravelion will confirm this.

[Ryder]

"• For Sagas, having the Saga mechanic means that your card is a Saga. It can't simply reference Sagas, it has to be a Saga itself."

Well, this changes things drastically. I would allow it now.

[slimytrout]

Thanks for your words of support, [mention]void_nothing[/mention]! And yes, [mention]Ryder[/mention], in retrospect I probably should have simply stuck with my original submission, but I got a little too excited about making a flavorful (redacted because I realized I shouldn't say anything else before the judging), and I actually changed my design to include devotion because I realized a Saga token didn't satisfy the clarification.

[void_nothing]

I sympathize with both judges and players on issues like this, because I've been on both ends. On one hand, judges should absolutely be making sure everyone follows the challenge as written and have every right to look into whether contestants have done so. On the other hand, players are going to want to push boundaries in the final round especially. The MCC is best when both of those things are happening.

[Ryder]

Apologies, I won't be able to post the crits today. I will do it tomorrow.

[bravelion83]

I've looked at slimytrout's card and statement and under the circumstances I'd like to ask bravelion83 to reverse the disqualification.

I am really really sorry, but I don't see the basis to reverse the DQ. Two things:
• The card has to have the mechanic itself, the mechanics aren't intended to go on a token created by the card. I think the Main Challenge is clear about that: "design a card that has a THB mechanic" is different from "design a card that has or creates a token that has a THB mechanic". The card has to have the mechanic. Also, the mechanic has to be one, that's well specified, even underlined, in the Main Challenge.
• There are either zero (if you count only the card itself) or two (Saga plus devotion, if you count the token). Either way, the number of THB mechanics is different than one. The Main Challenge required you to use exactly one. Both things go against the Main Challenge.

If you force me as moderator, I will have to do it, but very regretfully because to my eyes it's evident that it's not right in my opinion to reverse the DQ. The card goes against both the letter (twice) of the Main Challenge, and the spirit. I agree that it's a very insteresting card, but it's definitely outside the limits of the Main Challenge. Again, I'm really sorry. See this quote, which I 100% agree with:

If violating the critical part of a challenge is not considered DQable, probably nothing is.

fair shot

That's the point. It's not a fair shot to me, it's a missed shot.

Unfortunately, the challenge does not say a word about being a Saga. It specifies having the mechanic.

The clarifications specify that. See those.

Choose any interpretation of the following:
1) Only mechanics on the card as a permanent count
2) All mechanics on the card count

1) is the intended one.

In case of 1), slimytrout's card has 0 of the referenced mechanics, as both of them are on the token.

This is the case, and the reason for the DQ.

Unfortunately, the challenge does not say a word about being a Saga. It specifies having the mechanic.
Choose any interpretation of the following:
1) Only mechanics on the card as a permanent count
2) All mechanics on the card count

In case of 1), slimytrout's card has 0 of the referenced mechanics, as both of them are on the token.
In case of 2), slimytrout's card has 2 of the referenced mechanics

Except, check the clarifications, which have been the same every round.

"• For Sagas, having the Saga mechanic means that your card is a Saga. It can't simply reference Sagas, it has to be a Saga itself."

Clearly creating a Saga token is "referencing Sagas" and not a "use" of the mechanic as defined by the challenge. I'm sure bravelion will confirm this.

In fact, I 100% confirm this.
If the card created a Saga token, but had devotion on the card itself and not the token, it wouldn't have been DQ'ed.

"• For Sagas, having the Saga mechanic means that your card is a Saga. It can't simply reference Sagas, it has to be a Saga itself."

Well, this changes things drastically. I would allow it now.

I'm sorry, but how can you allow it? "your card is a Saga" is not "your card creates a token that's a Saga". And devotion is on the token, not on the card.

[void_nothing]

Once again, no, I'm not going to force you or any other organizer to take any kind of decision. This is just a reasonable disagreement, not an emergency.

I still think you're stuck in a semantic trap. slimy is right to point out that devotion isn't a mechanic that a card can have, it's a quality of a player, and having it anywhere in the rules text would seem to count towards the main challenge. I don't think there being one layer of "distance" - having the devotion check be in effectively a nested ability - invalidates that. And the clarifications you wrote say that unless the card's typeline is "Enchantment - Saga", it doesn't count towards "having" the Saga mechanic.

[slimytrout]

So a card that reads "create an X/X green Ooze creature token, where X is your devotion to green" gets a 2/2 on the Main Challenge, whereas a card that reads "create a */* green Ooze creature token with 'this creature's power and toughness are equal to your devotion to green'" gets a 0/2 on the Main Challenge and a DQ? That seems to me a very large penalty for a very fine distinction, and somewhat contrary to the idea that both the letter and the spirit of the challenge are important.

If the challenge were "Design a card that has first strike" or even "Design a card that has raid" I would understand that a token with those properties would not fit (although, in all honesty, I would not, as a judge, give the card a 0/2 and a DQ, at least for the raid hypothetical). But, to be very technical, no cards "have" devotion -- per the rules (glossary), devotion is defined as "A numerical value a player has, equal to the number of mana symbols of a certain color among the mana costs of permanents that player controls." If we're very interested in investigating the letter of the challenge, not a single devotion card this entire month has satisfied the main challenge. Since we can all agree that that is a ludicrous position to take, I don't see why the line ought to be drawn firmly over tokens.

[Gateways7]

While I doubt me saying something is going to change anything, as one of the other contestants being judged in this round I'd like to say that I think that slimytrout deserves a chance to be judged here. The argument that "devotion doesn't count if it's on a token" doesn't make sense to me - do Abbhorent Overlord and Gray Merchant of Asphodel not count as having devotion because the card doesn't actually use devotion, but instead it's an enters-the-battlefield trigger? Does Altar of the Pantheon not have devotion because it doesn't actually use devotion as a part of calculations, but just increases it? Devotion isn't something a card can "have", and because of the lack of clarification given, the only way to accurately determine whether a card has devotion is if it's a part of the rules text of that card, which it does. The separation of "card vs. token" seems unfair considering slimy had no way of telling where that line was.

[bravelion83]

Once again, no, I'm not going to force you or any other organizer to take any kind of decision.

Thank you.

This is just a reasonable disagreement, not an emergency.

I agree.

I still think you're stuck in a semantic trap. slimy is right to point out that devotion isn't a mechanic that a card can have, it's a quality of a player

True. I should have written in the clarifications "having devotion means that a devotion check is written on the card itself". That's what I actually meant.

and having it anywhere in the rules text would seem to count towards the main challenge.

As long as the source of the devotion check is the card itself, this is true. The problem here is that the devotion check if performed by the token, not the card.

And the clarifications you wrote say that unless the card's typeline is "Enchantment - Saga", it doesn't count towards "having" the Saga mechanic.

In fact. What's true is that I have made a mistake, not including that clarification I mentioned above about devotion. I haven't thought of it. I'm sorry.

People, I'm going to answer everything. Just give me the time please. Let's start back where I left:

I actually changed my design to include devotion

The problem is that you've included it on the token and not the card.

I sympathize with both judges and players on issues like this, because I've been on both ends. On one hand, judges should absolutely be making sure everyone follows the challenge as written and have every right to look into whether contestants have done so. On the other hand, players are going to want to push boundaries in the final round especially. The MCC is best when both of those things are happening.

I agree with all of this. Really. Does that mean this round is the best one ever? No, not even close.

Apologies, I won't be able to post the crits today. I will do it tomorrow.

This looks like the least of the problems here. Sojourner Dusk has also made me know they will post their judgments tomorrow. In the guidelines, a 24-hour time extension is foreseen, and here I'll say that it's been asked and granted.

So a card that reads "create an X/X green Ooze creature token, where X is your devotion to green" gets a 2/2 on the Main Challenge, whereas a card that reads "create a */* green Ooze creature token with 'this creature's power and toughness are equal to your devotion to green'" gets a 0/2 on the Main Challenge and a DQ?

Technically this is correct. Again, a token is not a card, and a token having an ability is not the card having that ability.

somewhat contrary to the idea that both the letter and the spirit of the challenge are important.

I don't see how. The letter looks clear to me:: the card has to have the mechanic, not the token. The spirit is making a card with the mechanic, not a token with the mechanic.

But, to be very technical, no cards "have" devotion -- per the rules (glossary), devotion is defined as "A numerical value a player has, equal to the number of mana symbols of a certain color among the mana costs of permanents that player controls." If we're very interested in investigating the letter of the challenge, not a single devotion card this entire month has satisfied the main challenge.

the lack of clarification given

In fact I've already said that has been a mistake on my part. I should have included that I wanted the card itself to perform the devotion check in the clarification. I didn't because I didn't think of it. I apologize, I'm only human, I can't foresee things.

I don't see why the line ought to be drawn firmly over tokens.

I'll give you the real answer even if I know it might not be satisfactory: because I didn't think about a player trying to put the (one) required mechanic on a token. I just didn't think of it while creating the challenge.

do Abhorrent Overlord (I've corrected the name so that the autocard works) and Gray Merchant of Asphodel not count as having devotion because the card doesn't actually use devotion, but instead it's an enters-the-battlefield trigger? Does Altar of the Pantheon not have devotion because it doesn't actually use devotion as a part of calculations, but just increases it?

I'll answer this with what my intent was. There should be a devotion check required and performed by the card itself. So the Overlord and Gary are fine. The source of the triggered ability is the card itself. In the card in question, the "source" of the devotion check is the token. That's the problem. The Altar would NOT have been fine, as it doesn't require a devotion check. It modifies it when one if performed, but doesn't require one to be made itself.

I expect at least Ryder to judge the card out of competition. Sojourner Dusk can do it too if they want, their choice. I won't because of lack of time due to my new job, this first week is already incredibly busy.

This should be all, I apologize for any typos, no time to reread it all now.

Goodbye to my changed sleep schedule. Good thing I don't have any lessons on Wednesday morning.