The DCC Discussion Thread

[Rithaniel]

Rithaniel

Show

Hide

Extra points (if I could) for the flavor text. Except for the part about teaching violence, it could be me: I'm a teacher, I identify as Boros as a person (easy Jeskai if we go three colors), and I do try to teach all of my students first a way to live and only then my subject (chemistry). At the end of each school year, when I have to leave them, I always make sure to tell them in the last lesson that I don't care whether they remember a single chemistry concept, but I care that they remember me as just a man, one who tried his best to do his job. A tear came off my eye just from reading that line. Thank you.

Actually, I wasn't thinking of the character as a great soldier employed as an educator in a military school. He teaches strategies for the battlefield, as well as methods of enacting violence, because that's what the school wants him to teach. But when he goes into battle, he exclusively looks after his squad, ensuring they survive above all else.

But yes, the parallels with being a real educator is felt on my side too. I teach math at my local college.

[bravelion83]

I teach math at my local college.

That's where that flavor text comes from then. A teacher speaking to another. We both know what we are talking about.

[OneAndOnly]

Votes: Rithaniel, OneAndOnly (I like that Fortification cycle, the only thing that makes me think is why would you want to move it among your lands, they could probably be just Auras... also, missing rarity, but I'll ignore that today for once)

I've said my peace about rarities elsewhere (as well as hyphens before mana costs), so I won't repeat those arguments here.

As far as why a Fortification? This cycle animates lands, which makes them vulnerable to much more removal than lands do -- lethal combat damage, destruction effects, and so on. Auras would blip out, but Fortfications make them re-usable. Plus, Fortifications are really underused, and I think this cycle gives them a clear identity. Animate creatures, offer two-color mana fixing, and have a usable effect that triggers off combat damage.

[Rithaniel]

I've said my peace about rarities elsewhere (as well as hyphens before mana costs), so I won't repeat those arguments here.

I feel like I've seen you say this before, yet I've not yet seen your arguments about rarity. Could I encourage you to share them?

For me, I find that I like using rarity in much the same way as punctuation marks. Kinda like a "this is how I want my audience (other CCC people) to interpret my card. Common is like "I'm posting a set, more than a card," and mythic is like "this card is meant to be exciting, cool, and to maybe flirt with the idea of warping an environment." Rare and uncommon are most of where my cards end up, though.

I don't think lacking rarity necessarily hurts the card, particularly if context clues can fill in the gaps, but a card without it always feels like a sentence without punctuation, to me.

I think equipment works better mechanically -- I assume you were deciding between aura and equipment

Yeah, I borrowed some wording from reconfigure, I'm sure you noticed. I was inspired by OneAndOnly's cycle a fair bit. But where those are a cycle of land attachments that turn lands into creatures, I went with lands that turn into creature attachments.

The choice of Aura over Equipment came mostly from flavor. Like, a land that turns into some manner of equipment is difficult to flavor, but a place having a spirit that can travel with you is easy. I'm not sure I fully captured that flavor, though.

I'm not convinced there's any meaningful mechanical differences between Aura-ensoul and Equipment-reconfigure, but I might understand if the misgiving comes from ease of perceiving how the mechanic is supposed to work based on previous player understanding of how Auras and equipments work.

[OneAndOnly]

I've said my peace about rarities elsewhere (as well as hyphens before mana costs), so I won't repeat those arguments here.

I feel like I've seen you say this before, yet I've not yet seen your arguments about rarity. Could I encourage you to share them?

The simple version is that rarity is environment-sensitive. You can find numerous cards in MtG history that have been printed at different rarities in different sets, as well as internal documentation about shifting the rarity of cards to fill in gaps in a set. There are also sets or printings (e.g., precons, Secret Lairs, and others) where 'rarity' doesn't matter, because you're guaranteed to get one of each card in that particular product. Since the games in the forum are about creating cards and not sets, there isn't proper context to attach a rarity to a card.

There's not a lot that necessarily distinguishes what a "common" version of a text box would look like versus a "mythic rare" version... or, as you suggest yourself, between uncommons and rares. We might agree to some common wisdom -- commons should be simpler, help present the themes of the set (context, again!), and not "warp the environment" (...again!)-- but you can also find counter-examples printed in previous sets.

Submittals aren't expected to be complete: I don't think I've seen a contest that requests expansion symbols or collector numbers, but those are both intrinsic parts of MtG cards.

Lastly, since rarity isn't always put forward as a criterion for submissions, there shouldn't be points deducted or granted for either including or not including it. Simply put, it's a requirement that is both vague and unnecessary toward judging the card.


As far as the second half of My Complaynte -- hyphens and other formatting for card submissions are, I feel, a non-issue and similarly shouldn't cause any deduction of points. Is it clear what the different components of the card are meant to be? If so, the "presentation," as it were, shouldn't matter. It'd be a little like deducting points for an image version of a card using the OG frame rather than the current frame.

I do feel very strongly about using other people's work without permission, and include AI-generated art in that category, and so I don't submit card images to contests. This does lead back to my original point, though -- artwork, and art direction, would be something that comes after the card's mechanical design is complete, and its presence or lack thereof shouldn't influence scoring in competitions either way.

[archemediesx]

Votes: netn10, archemediesx (even though I'd like to see what it means for a creature to be "euphoric", I've either missed that from your past submissions or you haven't shown us yet)

Euphoric is a marker like monstrous. In and of itself it has no inherent rules meaning, but other triggers can look and see if a creature became euphoric. Also unlike monstrous, there's no singularity claus so creatures can continue to become euphoric over and over again. Although I never did design anything to actually track how many times that's happened to a creature. No cops giving out a euphoric breathalyzer in the MTG universe. 🤠

[bravelion83]

Votes: netn10, archemediesx (even though I'd like to see what it means for a creature to be "euphoric", I've either missed that from your past submissions or you haven't shown us yet)

Euphoric is a marker like monstrous. In and of itself it has no inherent rules meaning, but other triggers can look and see if a creature became euphoric. Also unlike monstrous, there's no singularity claus so creatures can continue to become euphoric over and over again. Although I never did design anything to actually track how many times that's happened to a creature. No cops giving out a euphoric breathalyzer in the MTG universe. 🤠

I'd like to see some of those designs that actually use the fact that a creature is euphoric. I had guessed it was somewhat like being monstrous, but I can't remember ever seeing the payoff for having euphoric creatures. We've seen how a creature can become euphoric, but what are the consequences? No direct answer is needed here, I'm just giving you a potential prompt for future designs of yours. Nothing more than that.

[archemediesx]

Votes: netn10, marioguy3
.
Cash in for Value -- 2U
Sorcery {U}
Reveal and discard a card in your hand. Then, reveal cards from the top of your library until you reveal cards with a total combined mana value equal to the mana value of the card discarded this way. Put each card revealed this way into your hand.

i think this needs an 'equal to or greater than' claus for checking the total mana value. The way it's worded makes my believe that if you reveal a card and it exceeds the total mana value, the game state will continue to reveal cards without stopping, but would never put those cards into your hand as it's only checking for an exact amount.

[OneAndOnly]

Y'know, you're probably right. I would read it as "draw cards until you draw some set of cards with total MV equal to the discarded card's MV, then put all these cards into your hand." So if you discarded a card with MV 5, then revealed cards with MV 1, 3, and 3, you would continue to draw cards until you drew a card with MV 1, 2, 4 or 5. So it could conceivably net a lot more cards than intended.

I suppose a better wording would be, "Reveal cards until you reveal cards with total combined mana value equal to or greater than the mana value of the card discarded this way. Then, put a number of cards with combined mana value equal to or less than the chosen card's mana value into your hand, and mill the rest." But that's a lot lot lot wordier and thinkier.

[archemediesx]

Votes: netn10, marioguy3
.
Cash in for Value -- 2U
Sorcery {U}
Reveal and discard a card in your hand. Then, reveal cards from the top of your library until you reveal cards with a total combined mana value equal to the mana value of the card discarded this way. Put each card revealed this way into your hand.

Y'know, you're probably right. I would read it as "draw cards until you draw some set of cards with total MV equal to the discarded card's MV, then put all these cards into your hand." So if you discarded a card with MV 5, then revealed cards with MV 1, 3, and 3, you would continue to draw cards until you drew a card with MV 1, 2, 4 or 5. So it could conceivably net a lot more cards than intended.

I suppose a better wording would be, "Reveal cards until you reveal cards with total combined mana value equal to or greater than the mana value of the card discarded this way. Then, put a number of cards with combined mana value equal to or less than the chosen card's mana value into your hand, and mill the rest." But that's a lot lot lot wordier and thinkier.

i think you can get away with just changing the template to:
Cash in for Value -- 2U
Sorcery {U}
Discard a card, then reveal cards from the top of your library until you reveal a number of cards with total mana value equal to or greater than the mana value of the card discarded this way. Put each card revealed this way into your hand.

Votes: Rithaniel, archemiedesx
.
Cheers, Mate! -- WWW
Instant {R}
Each player may create a Food token and a Libation token. For each player who does so, gain 3 life.

Props to the Libation token nod, so cheers, Mate! In a vacuum a triple color cost is pretty brutal though. Considering this is giving your opponent a better shot at the long game and board potential i would expect only a single color mana cost 2W. As example, my preference in most limited formats is to breeze past anything that requires more than two colored mana.

[Rithaniel]

I went back to see that link and it turns out that... uhm... how can I say it? I have judged that card! I didn't remember it.

Yeah, I always liked that design, but it's far easier to remember your own designs rather than someone else's. It stuck in my head because I won than MCC, and is now inspiring a full cycle.

In hindsight, I feel I should have been docked more for balance. Mana cost 6 sorceries should be on par with board wipes already, and the Dictums are even more difficult to cast than a normal mana cost 6 spell. They should be doing particularly impressive things. The original Pitiless Dictum was far too restrained for a cost like that.

Then again, perhaps my own perception of balance is out of whack. I'd be down to see some takes on the balance of the other Dictums.

[bravelion83]

I'd be down to see some takes on the balance of the other Dictums.

I have to finish my real MCC judgments first (by tomorrow night for sure), then if I feel like doing that I might want to try to judge them all... I'll let you know.

On a more serious note, you're the one who takes over from me on the 3rd, correct? It's not the first time I get our rotation order wrong...

[Rithaniel]

On a more serious note, you're the one who takes over from me on the 3rd, correct? It's not the first time I get our rotation order wrong...

Oh, nah, I had February. I believe it's @void_nothing for April.

[void_nothing]

Correct, April is my month.

[bravelion83]

On a more serious note, you're the one who takes over from me on the 3rd, correct? It's not the first time I get our rotation order wrong...

Oh, nah, I had February. I believe it's @void_nothing for April.

Correct, April is my month.

*sighs* Will I ever get this right? Ok, I'm correcting my statement in today's thread then...

[archemediesx]

Votes: archemedesx (I need a full set around this mechanic), Rithaniel

I appreciate I've been able to inspire you. Keep your eyes on the custom set forum. It's coming Soon™.

[bravelion83]

@netn10 is the winner of the March DCC! But you all please feel free to check out today's thread (April 2nd, 2024 for posterity), as I have a message for you all in the notes of the day. Tomorrow void_nothing will take over.

[Rithaniel]

Rithaniel - im unsure if that can only search for a land that has Forest type only or if it can also search for typeless lands.. i suspect a mild rewording mite be in order

I think the current wording pretty clearly allows searching for typeless lands, which was entirely intended. (It can go get Gates or Urza's or whatever. Just any non-Plains/Island/Swamp/Mountain)

The fun part is that it can search up a Forest, but not any dual typelands. So, it trades one strength (fetching up a Temple Garden) for another (searching up a Wasteland).

It's still too expensive to be competitive with any actual land fetch mechanism that sees constructed use, of course.

[bravelion83]

Maddening Intrusion XXB
Sorcery (R)
Mill X cards. Target opponent discards any number of cards with total mana value equal to or greater than the total mana value of cards milled this way.
The deadliest bullets are those aimed at the mind.

bravelion83 (shouldn't there be a hand reveal?)

I've actually thought about it as I was designing the card. It's not needed as you can see the total mana value of the cards your opponent has discarded as they hit their graveyard, a public zone. I intentionally didn't use a Duress effect, I wanted the opponent to choose which cards to discard, not you.

[archemediesx]

I've actually thought about it as I was designing the card. It's not needed as you can see the total mana value of the cards your opponent has discarded as they hit their graveyard, a public zone. I intentionally didn't use a Duress effect, I wanted the opponent to choose which cards to discard, not you.

I think the confusion might be with how the opponent choses to interpret that template as well. here's an alternative template if it suits you:

"Mill X cards. Target opponent discards a card, then repeats this process until they've discarded cards with total mana value equal to or greater than the total mana value of cards milled this way."

[bravelion83]

I've actually thought about it as I was designing the card. It's not needed as you can see the total mana value of the cards your opponent has discarded as they hit their graveyard, a public zone. I intentionally didn't use a Duress effect, I wanted the opponent to choose which cards to discard, not you.

I think the confusion might be with how the opponent choses to interpret that template as well. here's an alternative template if it suits you:

"Mill X cards. Target opponent discards a card, then repeats this process until they've discarded cards with total mana value equal to or greater than the total mana value of cards milled this way."

Yeah. Or also something inspired by Tasha's Hideous Laughter, that I've had played against too many times today in my big Modern tournament... but I digress. Something like:

"Mill X cards. Target opponent discards cards until that player has discarded cards with total mana value equal to or greater than the total mana value of cards milled this way."

At this point it would probably be just an editing decision.

[wizyard]

Maddening Intrusion XXB
Sorcery (R)
Mill X cards. Target opponent discards any number of cards with total mana value equal to or greater than the total mana value of cards milled this way.
The deadliest bullets are those aimed at the mind.

bravelion83 (shouldn't there be a hand reveal?)

I've actually thought about it as I was designing the card. It's not needed as you can see the total mana value of the cards your opponent has discarded as they hit their graveyard, a public zone. I intentionally didn't use a Duress effect, I wanted the opponent to choose which cards to discard, not you.

but if the opponent didn't have cards in hand with total mana value equal to or greater than that, they wouldn't have to discard because they couldn't meet the requirement, right? and if that's a possible scenario, then they could claim that was true- so they should have to reveal to prove it.. maybe im missing something, but i don't think so

T: Add CC, W, or U. If you add more than one mana this way, put a stun counter on Expanse of Ice and you lose 1 life.

why isn't this two separate abilities? you could lose the clause "if you.." in the effect.

also, for spoils of vault, i dunno why you chose to have a separate triggered ability for the discard when it could be in the cost of the plot ability

[bravelion83]

Maddening Intrusion XXB
Sorcery (R)
Mill X cards. Target opponent discards any number of cards with total mana value equal to or greater than the total mana value of cards milled this way.
The deadliest bullets are those aimed at the mind.

bravelion83 (shouldn't there be a hand reveal?)

I've actually thought about it as I was designing the card. It's not needed as you can see the total mana value of the cards your opponent has discarded as they hit their graveyard, a public zone. I intentionally didn't use a Duress effect, I wanted the opponent to choose which cards to discard, not you.

but if the opponent didn't have cards in hand with total mana value equal to or greater than that, they wouldn't have to discard because they couldn't meet the requirement, right? and if that's a possible scenario, then they could claim that was true- so they should have to reveal to prove it.. maybe im missing something, but i don't think so

The idea here is that the spell would do as much as it can, so in the case you mention, they would have to discard their entire hand. Not all wordings probably accomplish that, but that was the intention.

T: Add CC, W, or U. If you add more than one mana this way, put a stun counter on Expanse of Ice and you lose 1 life.

why isn't this two separate abilities? you could lose the clause "if you.." in the effect.

also, for spoils of vault, i dunno why you chose to have a separate triggered ability for the discard when it could be in the cost of the plot ability

In both cases, I'm trying to walk the thin like between original and familiar. Also, in Expanse of Ice one could argue that having a single ability is not the same than having multiple abilities, but I guess we all agree on the fact that that's nothing more than just a technicality. For the Spoils, I chose a triggered ability exactly because I didn't want it to be part of a cost, you've answered your own question there.

[wizyard]

Let's say X is 1 for Maddening Intrusion. I mill one card with mana value let's say 2. My opponent has two cards in hand, one is a land and one is a card with mana value 1.. So, no matter what number or combination of cards the opponent discards, it is not possible for them to discard the required total equaling 2 or more combined mana value. If they can't meet the requirement they don't have to do anything at all, in fact they shouldn't according to the rules. But as a design rule in paper magic if there's an opportunity to cheat or make a mistake in regards to the content of a hidden zone, the relevant information should be shared publicly- the opponent should reveal their hand in this case.

Right? Like, if a card said "Target opponent sacrifices any number of creatures with combined mana value 4 or more." and that player controlled four Ornithopters and a Cathodion, they wouldn't have to sacrifice all of their creatures or even any of their creatures. Because the requirement can't be met.

And we're dealing with a hidden zone, so if the requirement can't be met the opponent has to prove it by revealing their hand. Otherwise they could lie or miscount.

[bravelion83]

How about this then?

Maddening Intrusion XXB
Sorcery (R)
Mill X cards. Target opponent reveals all the cards in their hand, then they choose any number of cards with total mana value equal to or greater than the total mana value of cards milled this way from among the revealed cards. That player discards the chosen cards.
The deadliest bullets are those aimed at the mind.

What I care about is that the opponent chooses what they discard, not you, and that's preserved here as it's them who choose. All the other issues you bring up should be solved in this version. Functionally it's almost the same, the only difference is that the opponent also reveals the cards they don't choose to discard, and that looks acceptable to me. Of course it's also more wordy, but that's another matter.