July MCC Round 3: Deep Freeze

[slimytrout]

July MCC Round 3

Deep Freeze

Welcome to the July MCC! It's going to be Natural Disasters Month. Next up: blizzards and avalanches.

Main Challenge — Design a snow card.

Subchallenge 1 — Your card has at least one noncreature subtype. (1 point)

Subchallenge 2 — Your card would go well in a commander deck led by Jorn, God of Winter. (1 point)

Clarifications

Show

Hide

Subchallenge 2: Most obviously, that means no red or white in its color identity. But to earn full points it should have some synergy with one or both sides beyond just being a snow permanent.

If you have any more questions, feel free to post them in the MCC discussion thread.

You can also check out the MCC Guidelines and FAQ if you have the will and time. You can find it in a low size PDF version attached to this post and you can also find the link to the original higher size PDF in my signature. They are the same document, I just had to compress it more to be able to put it here as an attachment as the original file, the one linked in my signature, is too large to be attached here. Among the many things you can find there are a detailed explanation of the rubric (section 6.2) and the recommended card formatting (section 4) that you should use to format your text cards. Expect deductions in Quality if you don't follow that recommended formatting from section 4 in any way.


DEADLINES

Design deadline: Sunday, August 30th 2026 at 23:59 Eastern Time

Judging deadline: TBD


RUBRIC

MCC Rubric

Show

Hide

The MCC Rubric is given below, in an easily "copy and pasted" form. (Courtesy of Rithaniel.)

---

Code: Select all

[b]Design[/b]
[b](X/3) Appeal[/b] - Do the different player psychographics (Timmy/Johhny/Spike) have a use for the card?
[b](X/3) Elegance[/b] - Is the card easily understandable at a glance? Do all the flavor and mechanics combined as a whole make sense?
 
[b]Development[/b]
[b](X/3) Viability[/b] - How well does the card fit into the color wheel? Does it break or bend the rules of the game? Is it the appropriate rarity?
[b](X/3) Balance[/b] - Does the card have a power level appropriate for contemporary constructed/limited environments without breaking them? Does it play well in casual and multiplayer formats? Does it create or fit into a deck/archetype? Does it create an oppressive environment?
 
[b]Creativity[/b]
[b](X/3) Uniqueness[/b] - Has a card like this ever been printed before? Does it use new mechanics, ideas, or design space? Does it combine old ideas in a new way? Overall, does it feel "fresh"?
[b](X/3) Flavor[/b] - Does the name seem realistic for a card? Does the flavor text sound professional? Do all the flavor elements synch together to please Vorthos players?
 
[b]Polish[/b]
[b](X/3) Quality[/b] - Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
[b](X/2) Main Challenge (*)[/b] - Was the main challenge satisfied? Was it approached in a unique or interesting way? Does the card fit the intent of the challenge?
[b](X/2) Subchallenges[/b] - One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
 
[b]Total: X/25[/b]
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.

JUDGES

slimytrout


PLAYERS

@EsperCormorant
@BatBite
@bravelion83
@Alchemist


A reminder to everyone: In the MCC, putting rarity on cards is mandatory! If you don't put a rarity on your card, expect huge deductions in both Viability AND Quality.

[BatBite]

Dagger of Ice
Snow Artifact - Equipment (U)
Equipped creature is snow in addition to its other types.
Equipped creature gets ", : Deal 1 damage to target creature for each snow permanent you control.
Equip

[Alchemist]

Irridescent Blizzard 1G
Snow Enchantment (R)
Snow lands you control have "T: Add one mana of any color. This mana can't be spent to cast a nonsnow spell."
3SS, Discard this card: Put a stun counter on all nonsnow lands.

[bravelion83]

Avalanche Researcher 2GG
Snow Artifact Creature — Treasure Dog (R)
Whenever this creature attacks, create a tapped Treasure token.
Treasure tokens are snow and can't be sacrificed.
T, Sacrifice this creature: Add one mana of any color.
"You wouldn't believe what kinds of strange items I've found under the snow in Qal Sisma with all these instruments in the pockets of my winter suit! True treasures, I tell you!"
2/3

[EsperCormorant]

Yeti Umbra
Snow Enchantment - Aura (R)
Enchant creature
When this Aura enters, enchanted creature can't be blocked this turn.
Enchanted creature has ", : This creature fights target creature you don't control."
Umbra armor (If enchanted creature would be destroyed, instead remove all damage from it and destroy this Aura.)

[slimytrout]

Round is closed! (Even though everyone got their submissions in a week ago.) Judging will now commence.

Pairings are:
Alchemist (22+21.5=43.5) vs. EsperCormorant (19+23=42)
bravelion (21.5+21.5=43) vs. BatBite (21.5+21.5=43)

[Alchemist]

bump

[slimytrout]

Alchemist

Show

Hide

Design
(1/3) Appeal - Johnny is moderately interested just because this is a weird card but ultimately it doesn't really do much for them. Most Timmies aren't interested in just making more colors of mana (they'd prefer to assume their mana is going to work out fine without it), but griefers are a subset of Timmies and they might like the last ability. Spike is not interested.
(2/3) Elegance - Restrictions on mana usage can always cause comprehension issues, especially when you grant them to a whole group of permanents.

Development
(2.5/3) Viability - Color is interesting because green doesn't get a lot of land freezing (yes, I know about Vorinclex, Voice of Hunger), but the ability is technically colorless so it's merely a bend. Rarity is fine.
(2/3) Balance - The main ability is pretty weak compared to something like Chromatic Lantern because it doesn't actually generate any mana. If you're playing it at all then it's probably functioning almost like a Prismatic Omen, but that card is most useful in, say, a Grizzlegom, Hurloon Hero commander deck where land types actually matter. The second ability has a bit more oomph, but you're spending five mana and a card to deny your opponent... probably about five mana. Not a great deal.

Creativity
(2/3) Uniqueness - Prismatic Omen is a decent comparison, but the discard ability gives it a bit of novelty.
(2.5/3) Flavor - Name definitely fits well with mechanics and is quite evocative, but flavor text would've fit and could've put it over the top.

Polish
(3/3) Quality - No issues.
(2/2) Main Challenge - Yep.
(1/2) Subchallenges - Not only does it not have any red or white, it also plays nicely with Kaldring, the Rimestaff because you can discard it and then play it from th graveyard. No noncreature subtypes though.

Total: 18/25

EsperCormorant

Show

Hide

Design
(2/3) Appeal - Timmy definitely likes this -- they have visions of mowing down their opponent's creatures with their beater, plus it grants umbra armor so what could go wrong? Spike is very much aware of what could go wrong, but the fact that they can use the fight ability the turn they cast the aura is definitely tempting. Johnny has a few things to latch onto, but it's not totally their speed.
(2.5/3) Elegance - All the abilities individually make sense, but I had to look at it a second time to make sure I wasn't missing some way to avoid having the two main abilities compete with each other (the only thing I found is that it'd be good to put on a creature with vigilance).

Development
(3/3) Viability - Sure, G/U rare is the best place for this.
(2.5/3) Balance - I think this is a bit underpowered for most constructed formats. Aqueous Form gives permanent unblockability (plus scrying) for just 1 mana, so that ability isn't worth a full mana. Spider Umbra gives +1/+1 and umbra armor also for one mana, so umbra armor also is worth less than one mana. Repeated fighting is the only thing left, and it's a good ability if you can make it work, but it still requires the correct board state to really do anything. Plus, as noted earlier, the abilities are kind of a non-bo with each other.

Creativity
(2/3) Uniqueness - The components have mostly been seen before but this is definitely a new way to combine them.
(3/3) Flavor - It does feel Yeti-like in its abilities. No real room for flavor text.

Polish
(3/3) Quality - No issues.
(2/2) Main Challenge - Yep.
(2/2) Subchallenges - It's an aura, and it would definitely be nice to bring back from the graveyard with Kaldring.

Total: 22/25

bravelion83

Show

Hide

Design
(1/3) Appeal - Johnny is interested -- this is a strange card and they have some ideas. Neither Spike nor Timmy wants a 2/3 for 4 mana that has to attack to accomplish anything and can sacrifice itself to give a one mana refund (and no cards).
(2.5/3) Elegance - I think it would be easy to miss that this shuts down your opponent's Treasures as well. Otherwise pretty understandable.

Development
(2.5/3) Viability - I suppose shutting down your opponent's treasures is probably rare, but the card does not feel very rare otherwise -- we've seen plenty of repeated Treasure generation at uncommon (e.g., Careening Mine Cart).
(2/3) Balance - This is pretty weak. Again, the Treasure lockdown is clearly the most powerful part -- some popular commanders are fully based around treasures -- but 4 mana for a pretty fragile creature is not an appealing rate for this ability.

Creativity
(3/3) Uniqueness - Yeah, this feels pretty novel -- the "can't be sacrificed" text has never been used in this sort of way before.
(1.5/3) Flavor - I'm a bit confused by it. I think this is just supposed to be a regular Ainok who has so much treasure on him that he becomes one himself? But that's not really how artifact creatures tend to work -- a knight doesn't become an artifact by wearing plate mail, he has to actually have body parts that are artificial.

Polish
(3/3) Quality - No issues.
(2/2) Main Challenge (*) - Yep.
(2/2) Subchallenges - Is a Treasure. The synergy with Kaldring is there -- you can build up treasures, then sacrifice it to unlock them, then play it from the graveyard -- even if it's a pretty slow loop.

Total: 19.5/25

BatBite

Show

Hide

Design
(2.5/3) Appeal - Timmy and Spike are both very interested in mowing their opponents' creatures down. Johnny is interested in the strong scaling potential, but ultimately it's a little straightforward for them.
(3/3) Elegance - Clear enough.

Development
(2/3) Viability - Colorless can do pretty much anything, but I think at this power level it should be rare for sure (compare to Pathway Arrows).
(2/3) Balance - All this asks for is a deck full of creatures and snow lands, which is not a difficult request to fulfill. At that point, you can just start killing a creature every turn -- two creatures once you get to six snow mana. The only thing that saves this from being even more broken is that it takes 2SSSS to play it, equip, and shoot on the same turn, so for most of the game there will be a window where this can be answered 1-for-1 with artifact destruction.

Creativity
(1.5/3) Uniqueness - Pretty much just Skred on a stick.
(2/3) Flavor - Could have used a bit more zest -- Dagger of Ice is pretty generic, and it's also not clear why this dagger doesn't make the creature any stronger (like all the other daggers that have been printed) and instead gives it the ability to snipe other creatures.

Polish
(1.5/3) Quality - Missing a close quotes on the granted ability (-0.5). Should be "damage equal to" rather than "1 damage for each" (-0.5). Snow is a supertype so the "in addition to its other types is unnecessary (-0.5).
(2/2) Main Challenge (*) - Yep.
(2/2) Subchallenges - Is an equipment. The only submission to combo with Jorn rather than his staff.

Total: 18.5/25

Scores

Show

Hide

Alchemist: 18
vs.
EsperCormorant: 22

bravelion83: 19.5
vs.
BatBite: 18.5