The MCC Discussion Thread

[Komandon]

Thank you. I just posted an entry. I thought I was going to be out during the day when I was physically able to but it just snowed so I'm stuck. Which actually worked out. (Normally I don't like it when it snows.) ⛄️❄️

[Komandon]

Been looking back on questions I posted and I can't find if I asked this. If I disagree with part of the judgement how does that work. Same for if I wanted more clarification on parts that I understand.

[bravelion83]

If I disagree with part of the judgement how does that work. Same for if I wanted more clarification on parts that I understand.

@Komandon If the disagreement involves only you and the judge, you can politely ask here for both the former and the latter, possibly tagging the judge. If the disagreement also involves other people (especially one of your opponents in the round), you can do the same but strictly via pm to the judge. No third parties should be involved in anything that's been brought up here in this thread. In all cases, if you want the "appeal" to possibly cause a change in scores (though at the sole distrection of the judge themselves), remember to do this before the judging deadline. That's the moment when scores are final and no longer allowed to change in any way. If you're simply asking for clarifications and don't care about possible score changes, then you can do it at any time, even after the judging deadline.

[Komandon]

Isn't the MCC for February deadline over even though Voidnothing didn't post his? Based on the can of worms I opened with other mods weighing in the one that I later apologize for asking. (The one that the contest has subchalleges that were controversial) I assuming the rulings are carved in stone.

It's an appeal/clarification of @Raptorchan on mine for Quality on the first part of his explanation and the Elegance but only that part since it references Quality. For example. The word "gains" is said to be needed. Cards like Tale of Tinúviel that but There and Back Again. Both target so it's confusing. The War Games doesn't target and has no word "gains".

Same for the second part of my saga. I will admit it's grammatically incorrect but for a different reason. I give my instants and sorceries cycling and used the "have" which is plural but should be "has". Not "gains" IMO. So I agree I deserve a point off for that. I'm going by cards like Niv-Mizzet, Supreme and Satoru Umezawa

Lastly though I got a 2/3 and assume even if I got more Quality score that would still be the same. It's more the comment on it being quite wordy I don't understand. The sagas I mentioned I think seem wordier. I don't understand how to have made it shorter.

So I assume the score can't change. I don't understand some of it as mentioned above.

SPOILER

Show

Hide

Elrond Deciphers Moon-letters 3UU
Enchantment — Saga (R)
(As this Saga enters and after your draw step, add a lore counter. Sacrifice after III.)
I — Whenever an opponent draws one or more cards, you may scry 1 for as long as you control Elrond Deciphers Moon-letters.
II — Until end of turn, each instant and sorcery cards in your hand have cycling 2.
III — Your may put any number of target instant and sorcery cards in your graveyard to the top of your library with total mana value of 6 or less.

[bravelion83]

Isn't the MCC for February deadline over even though Voidnothing didn't post his? (...)
So I assume the score can't change. I don't understand some of it as mentioned above.

When I answer questions like yours is from the point of view of the author of the guidelines document. I was explaining you what the guidelines have to say about what you asked. Unfortunately, we all know that theory and practice are too often different things, and this is no exception. I gave you the theory. Practice may unfortunately differ. Judging on time is a very important thing in the MCC yet too often overlooked. You may refer back to my post of analysis and comments about January feedback for more details about that, here I'll just you an example from our January experiments. I and Ryder were the judges for the month. If you noticed, we were both always on time if not early with our judgments. Ryder thinks that having split weekends was the key factor, and this was certainly true for him. As for me, I was just very determined to be on time. I always am, but on January I was even more than usual. I have a habit of trying to be on time with my judgments, because I know that's important in the MCC. If I'm a judge and I'm posting my judgments even just one day before the judging deadline, I'm doing two good things at once: 1. I allow the contest to move on, because the host doesn't have to wait for my judgments until after, and sometimes well after, the judging deadline to post the next round (and I'll have more to say about that when my own March MCC starts), and 2. I allow some time between my judgments being public and them being final (technically with the judging deadline) so that people who might have something to say or to ask about them can do so, either here if it's only between you and the judge or via pm if third parties are involved as I said before. If a judge posts their judgments after the judging deadline, as you rightfully observe, that time for discussion can't exist, and that's bad. Players should be able to have some time to say things or ask for clarifications about judgments, exactly like you've just done in your post right above this one. There are judges (plural, but obviously I won't make names) who are always slow in their judgments. With slow judging, that discussion time just isn't there, and that's a problem, one that I've brought up multiple times and that we've recently discussed with our January experiments. I'm the first to say that real life should always come first, but if you're a judge and you realize you won't be able to make your judgments on time, your fellow judges for the month might help. We always have at least two judges, and collaboration between host and judges is expected and necessary for the contest to proceed at the correct pace. If you have a real life emergency, remember you're not alone, and you could and should ask for help. This is true in general by the way, and you can take my father's death in December as an example of that. While the MCC was indeed slowed down because of that, and honestly too much for my taste, the DCC just went on, and why? Because void_nothing helped me and essentially took over the rest of the month. He has been there to help me as a fellow DCC host when I needed it because of something happening in my own real life, as I'm sure Rithaniel (the other and only remaining host in our DCC rotation) would have done too. That's the kind of collaboration I'm talking about. As always, I've already gone too long so I will stop here and let @Raptorchan answer your questions, I've already said enough about the slowness problem in the MCC. And by the way, expect March to be more like January than February in that.

[Raptorchan]

@Komandon
"you may scry 1 for as long as you control Elrond Deciphers Moon-letters." is something worth being punished in either Elegance or Quality section, if not both.Even "For as long as you control ~, ..." would have been better.
About the second ability, it's a triggered ability that grants something until end of turn. There are no cards that say "target creature has trample until end of turn" - they go with "gains". For example of granting temporary abilities to cards, not permanents, see Ghost Ark.
Forgot to note in my judgement, your last ability starts with "Your" instead of "You" so it makes the seventh mistake (sixth if we admit that "you may scry 1 for as long as you control Elrond Deciphers Moon-letters." has rights to exist which I still doubt.)
By overall wordiness, maybe it was not the right choice of words and I was referring more to the complexity of the abilities combined. Plus, even if you refer to other wordy and complex cards that actually see print, it simply doesn't mean they are perfect and would deserve 25/25 automatically if posted here.

[Komandon]

I replying knowing it's set in stone. Just don't want to make avoidable mistakes in the future other than common grammer that human nature.

Are you saying "For as long as you control " should have been first not at the end of the sentence? I try to base my wording on existing cards. I can't find a saga. Since these are set in stone I don't understand other than common grammer mistakes such as the "Your" vs "You" that I didn't notice before, what to go by.

You Ghost Ark card seems to be similar to my Niv-Mizzet, Supreme example since both are not hidden zones. I don't know if the non-permanent card made a difference such as cards that grant flashback. Cards like Wort, the Raidmother referring to a hidden zone makes this more confusing.

Even without the your vs you if I rated myself I would have taken off for other parts for different reasons. Likely the same score.

I don't think I should continue relying. My only request now is what I should base my wording on going forward. Since other than the gains vs has/have ability the first chapter I can't find any example of other that "gains" being part of a target permanent such as The Horus Heresy There are I think 8 sagas that grant you abilities as long as it is under your control. If there is a better source to reference I would appreciate knowing what to use other than the companion app and gatherer.

[Raptorchan]

I replying knowing it's set in stone. Just don't want to make avoidable mistakes in the future other than common grammer that human nature.

Are you saying "For as long as you control " should have been first not at the end of the sentence? I try to base my wording on existing cards. I can't find a saga. Since these are set in stone I don't understand other than common grammer mistakes such as the "Your" vs "You" that I didn't notice before, what to go by.

You Ghost Ark card seems to be similar to my Niv-Mizzet, Supreme example since both are not hidden zones. I don't know if the non-permanent card made a difference such as cards that grant flashback. Cards like Wort, the Raidmother referring to a hidden zone makes this more confusing.

Even without the your vs you if I rated myself I would have taken off for other parts for different reasons. Likely the same score.

I don't think I should continue relying. My only request now is what I should base my wording on going forward. Since other than the gains vs has/have ability the first chapter I can't find any example of other that "gains" being part of a target permanent such as The Horus Heresy There are I think 8 sagas that grant you abilities as long as it is under your control. If there is a better source to reference I would appreciate knowing what to use other than the companion app and gatherer.

About Ghost Ark - You keep bringing cards that have static effects that grant something to other cards for as long as they remain on the battlefield but I repeat again, they function different from cards thetrant ablities until end of turn (like your sege) - in this case, cards "gain" something until end of turn and that's all. You also can see Goblin War Drums and Frontier Warmonger - first says that your creatures have menace and that's a static effect (for as long it stays on the battlefield, therefore affecting it), when second gives a one-off effects that lasts until end of turn - so your creatures GAIN menace but lose it at the end of turn. I hope that helps. If you still don't understand the difference, then I guess my English is not good enough.

About first ability - there aren't any prime examples of sagas granting activated or triggered abilities to themselves, except for Urza's Saga which I brought up while evaluating your card. Sagas you listed as examples simply have triggered first abilities with effects last until saga leaves the battlefield. But your saga is different from them.

[Raptorchan]

This month's MCC made me think something.
Haven't you guys considered making it three rounds instead of four? I remember MCCs on mtgsalvation where we had about 4 judges and approximately half of players were leaving the game each round but the current situation is different. Usual MCC now looks like - 10 players in round 1, 8 in round 2 (-2), 6 in round 3 (-2), 3 in round 4 (-3), and one finalist (-2). So basically, only a smaller percentage of players leaves the game after each round (except versus round), and in situations like today, when there is a tie, all players from the brackets can keep playing, making judging having no actual effect.
So, maybe, just maybe if we have three rounds, about 50% of players can leave the game each round, making it effectively 8-10 /=> 4 => 2 => 1. It also can save some times because current trend is MCC contests lasting more than one month (I know, technically it's possible to make it one round per week, but seems like it demands great effort from both players and judges).
Just an idea.

[bravelion83]

That would be a completely different contest in my opinion. I do remember how it was like on Salvation, and I also miss those days a lot. I think we should just accept that we have a different situation now, but making it three rounds instead of four would change too much the nature of this contest. What we need is for this contest to proceed at the proper pace, and we've demonstrated in January that it's possible. I want to try to do it again on March.

[slimytrout]

One thing that I will note is that when I've run the contest in the recent past with only two judges, I have cut from ~10->8->4->2 rather than ~10->8->6->3, which I think has two advantages: 1) it increases the stakes of round 2 since it feels more likely that you will get eliminated, and 2) it decreases the load for each judge, which goes ~5->4->4->2 rather than ~5->4->6->3. Obviously people should feel free to run their own rounds however they wish, but thought I'd share my own experiences.

[Komandon]

This is difficult to word and I don't want to be seen as advice. So maybe just hint at what my actual question is. Is there a blog post by Maro or others with WotC or websites to best grasp wording. names and aspects such as the color pie? (Rarity of cards I think one gave me a blog post and I book marked it). I ask since gatherer, companion app and MTGwiki is what I current use.

(Note. Reason I'm more active in the last few months in this and thread is fear and outside issues in my life. I didn't know when I first joined this website the forums and contests existed. And @bravelion83 I'm sorry for your loss. And thank you.)

[OneAndOnly]

I think the last Mark Rosewater column on color pie and game theory is this one (https://magic.wizards.com/en/news/makin ... -color-pie). It has links to earlier articles. I find it's important to understand how the color pie has developed over the lifespan of the game to understand why it is where it is now... even the bits where it wasn't as strongly developed or clarified.

[bravelion83]

And @bravelion83 I'm sorry for your loss. And thank you.

No, thanks to you for your thought and for being a part of this community. A little more than two months have passed by now, but simply reading sentences like yours here still makes me cry. Literally, I have tears in my eyes as I'm writing this. I am the one to thank you.

As for resources about color pie, there is a whole bibliography by Maro of articles and podcasts on the topic, both in general and for each color, color pair and even three-color combinations. I have a folder on my tablet with Maro's podcast about the color pie, because it's a topic I also find wonderful. I'll put a list of the ones I've got in that folder in a spoiler right here, but there might easily be even more ones that I don't have there. I'll also include his articles on the color pie, at least the ones I'm aware of and that I can find right now.

I think the last Mark Rosewater column on color pie and game theory is this one (https://magic.wizards.com/en/news/makin ... -color-pie). It has links to earlier articles. I find it's important to understand how the color pie has developed over the lifespan of the game to understand why it is where it is now... even the bits where it wasn't as strongly developed or clarified.

EDIT - Ok, OneAndOnly posted while I was writing this, and yes, they're right, that article they linked is an excellent starting point and a lot of the podcasts and articles Maro links to in that article are also included in my own list, though mine also include podcasts from after he wrote that article, ones that obviously aren't included in his lists there as he had yet to make them.

Podcasts and articles by Maro about the color pie

Show

Hide

"Drive to work" (Maro's podcast)

The "Golden Trifecta" (what Richard Garfield originally based the game on, these are the three most important things in the game according to Maro)
22 - The TCG genre
23 - The color pie
24 - The mana system

First cycle about single colors
26 - White
35 - Blue
52 - Black
65 - Red
79 - Green

First cycle about color pairs
173 - White-blue
185 - Blue-black
200 - Black-red
208 - Red-green
219 - Green-white
225 - Black-white
233 - Blue-red
245 - Black-green
253 - Red-white
267 - Green-white

Second cycle about single colors, letting each color speak in its own voice
569 - White speaks
570 - Blue speaks
571 - Black speaks
573 - Red speaks
574 - Green speaks

Second cycle about color pairs, with a focus on the guilds
594 - Dimir
595 - Selesnya
596 - Izzet
598 - Golgari
599 - Boros
615 - Azorius
616 - Rakdos
617 - Gruul
620 - Orzhov
621 - Simic

Third cycle about color pairs, focusing on philosophy
702 - White-blue
706 - Blue-black
709 - Black-red
714 - Red-green
718 - Green-white
721 - White-black
726 - Blue-red
766 - Black-green
782 - Red-white
796 - Green-blue

Third cycle about single colors, this time with the members of the Council of Colors at the time as guests
999 - Green with Megan Smith
1001 - Red with Jules Robins
1005 - Blue with Ethan Fleischer
1007 - Black with Corey Bowen
1009 - White with Chris Mooney

First and only (so far) cycle about three color combinations
1043 - Green-white-blue (aka Bant or Brokers)
1048 - White-blue-black (aka Esper or Obscura)
1051 - Blue-black-red (aka Grixis or Maestros)
1055 - Black-red-green (aka Jund or Riveteers)
1062 - Red-green-white (aka Naya or Cabaretti)
1068 - Red-white-black (aka Mardu or Savai)
1072 - Green-blue-red (aka Temur or Ketria)
1077 - White-black-green (aka Abzan or Indatha)
1082 - Blue-red-white (aka Jeskai or Raugrin)
1086 - Black-green-blue (aka Sultai or Zagoth)

Other color-pie-related topics
385 - Council of colors
456 - Mechanical color pie
457 - Color pie: dealing with creatures
679 - Changing the color pie

Other important design topics besides the color pie
9 - Psychographics
46 - Instants and sorceries
54 - Flavor text
68 - Piggybacking
125 - Lenticular design (part 1)
126 - Lenticular design (part 2)
345 - Twenty Lessons: Resonance
349 - Twenty Lessons: Piggybacking
455 - Complexity


"Making Magic" (Maro's articles)

This one is VERY important from a mechanical point of view, telling you what effects each color is allowed to do. There is another older one from 2018, but this is the one you should consider as it's more recent, even if a few changes have already intervened since this one if you notice. Maro said he plans to do these periodically with updates, but so far this is still the most recent one.
Mechanical color pie 2021

For the rest of the articles, you can just check the hub article OneAndOnly liked before me, I haven't found anything more recent. Maro himself lists all the relevant articles here.
Let's talk color pie

As for wording rules text, the best resource is just looking at real Magic cards, the more recent they are the better it is. I'm not aware of any specific resource about wording for rules text, I touch on it on my series of articles I wrote on Salvation several years ago (it's called "The Lion's Lair", you can find links from the "my projects" spoiler in my signature, make sure to scroll down to the very bottom of it to see it), but I warn you that it's quite old and many things are outdated by now, but some of the points I bring up still hold. Actually, I might want to write more about the topic of wording, it's an area I feel very strong in and there are very few existing resources about it... You might have inspired me... We'll see. For now, I still have enough writing left to do for my March MCC... You all will start seeing it in a few days. It's big. The biggest public attempt I've made so far... I've started it almost a month ago and I haven't finished yet. Totally unrelated (very related actually), I hope you all like loxodons and minotaurs...

Wording for card names and flavor text is simply the ordinary grammar and orthography of the English language. The better your knowledge of the English language, the easier you will find writing the flavor elements of your custom card. There is only two additional things I can think of that is specific to the formatting of flavor text: first, remember that it's always in italics, and second, when it's a quote, the attribution should be on a separate line with a long dash at the beginning and no spaces separating the dash from the character's name. Say I want my leonin planeswalker Jeff Lionheart (still the only one public from my huge table I think) to say "Hello!" to you. This is the way I should format it if it were flavor text:

"Hello, Komandon!"
—Jeff Lionheart

Common mistakes here include the following: putting quote and attribution on a single line, hyphen (-) instead of em dash (—), space right after the dash (for example "— Jeff Lionheart"), and not putting it in italics. For names and flavor text, the rest is really just the rules of normal English.

[Komandon]

I booked makes the color pie blog that @OneAndOnly shared. Thank you both @OneAndOnly and @bravelion83 for the links.

In one prior context that I waited until I think the finals were over (didn't make it base round two I think) I gave a clarification to a reason I made some part of the card that I was marked off for. In that case was the name for the creature. Am I allowed to do that after the finals are over and a winner is chosen. So it's not an appeal or clarification. Just an explanation. (I hate my memory issues. I can't remember SCOTUS cases I read but not .. oh well)

I know I asked something similar but that was for a card I can't find and was not language but why I had it function as it did. I'm sorry. I have progressive memory loss. (Another long story)

Lastly. This happened with my gmail app to that I had to work around my own but this isn't an app but a website. The MCC and CCL except for the @ name and deadline to post I didn't get a notification as I do for every post on this thread and and the CCL discussion. As well as others that I'm mentioned but even without an @. I use to when ever I was being critiqued but not the round two nor the last one for CCL. I just had to check each day. Anyone else have this experience. I know I can subscribe to threads. This month was the first time it didn't work unless @ is used and only in the two contests.

[bravelion83]

@Komandon Three things for you:
1. You are absolutely allowed to ask for explanations at any time if you need it. If it's about a card submitted in the MCC, this thread is the right place to do so.
2. I always subscribe and bookmark all threads when I host an MCC month and I've never had any problems with the notifications so far.
3. I think you might be very interested in this, it's a republishing with updates of the last article in the first season of The Lion's Lair on my own Google drive in pdf form. I've literally just made it tonight inspired by your post. In that article I essentially only talk about common wording and templating issues in rules text. I will do the same for the rest of the articles in the next days, and then who knows, I might even write some more... As I said, your post has inspired me, as it made me realize there aren't actually that many resources about wording and templating online, unlike card design (widely covered by Maro himself) or gameplay strategy (covered by professional players writing in several different websites). I can try to fill some of that void, and it happens to be a topic that I consider myself very good at. In the meantime, enjoy this republishing and my thanks to you for the inspiration you might have given me at the end of that article.

[AnotherAlias]

@bravelion83. Since you seem the most savvy on the rules since, well, you made them, how would one list the cards in a spellbook?

[bravelion83]

@bravelion83. Since you seem the most savvy on the rules since, well, you made them, how would one list the cards in a spellbook?

Thank you for the high consideration, but "made them" are strong words... Most of the rules were already existing, I only put them together in a single document because void_nothing himself kindly asked me to do so in the transition between Salvation and Nexus, and it's also true that I am one of the two authors of the current rubric and the other one is no longer active on this forum so I'm the only one left, and even then, when I and that other no longer active user remade the rubric (this was back then on Salvation), we didn't come up with it just out of nothing, there was a previous rubric before, one that you will see as I republish more of my old articles as those are based on that old rubric, and we based the new and current rubric on the structure of the old one, the biggest change being the introduction of two sections that weren't there before: Uniqueness (at the request of that other user) and Main Challenge (at my own request). The rest was just readjustments of something that already existed. I've had a big influence on this contest and its rules, I'm probably the most experienced person left from the old days by this point, and I wrote the current guidelines document, all of those are for sure, but saying that I just made the rules as if the MCC was my own creation feels a bit too much to me...

Anyway, coming to your question, that's a rather easy answer even though it might not be the one you were looking for: the guidelines have nothing to say about the spellbook mechanic, and that's for a very simple reason: the guidelines have been written before Arena even existed, and I can't obviously foresee the future, so I had no way to know that one day there would have been Arena-specific mechanics. So, just like everything else that's not included in the guidelines and even some things that are, that's a responsibility of the month's host, in this case @Raptorchan. This is really just a question for them: how do you want players to list cards in a spellbook? I could say how I would do it if I were the host this month, but the actual host's answer might differ from mine, and as the guidelines say nothing about it, the host's word is what counts. So I won't say anything about how I would do it other than it will probably have to involve an exception to the "no extra content" rule, and the host can make it, they just have to say it. Besides this, I'll just forward your question to this month's host. I know this wasn't probably the answer that you wanted, but that's it.

If you, or anybody else, need more clarifications from me, feel free to ask at any time. I hope I'll be able to help you more than I've been able to help here.

[void_nothing]

It is essentially the host's decision, but I would have to say in my opinion that if you're making a digital card that involves drafting from a spellbook, the spellbook cards are not actually "extra" content because they're linked to the card's abilities. So a simple list with autocard tags within a spoiler would suffice.

This December 2022 CCL challenge is a good example I think.

[bravelion83]

It is essentially the host's decision, but I would have to say in my opinion that if you're making a digital card that involves drafting from a spellbook, the spellbook cards are not actually "extra" content because they're linked to the card's abilities. So a simple list with autocard tags within a spoiler would suffice.

This December 2022 CCL challenge is a good example I think.

That's exactly the way I would have done it and I didn't want to say as I wanted Raptorchan as this month's host to answer first. But yes, that is exactly the way I would do it. I would have seen it as an exception to extra content, one that I would have had no problems granting anyway given the nature of the mechanic, but I can also see your reasoning about the list of cards being essentially a part of the card's rules text. Anyway, yes, that is exactly the way I would suggest too, but only the month's host can give the final answer.

EDIT (of interest for everyone, not just the ones involved in the part above this edit) - The Judge signup thread for March is up. Everybody please check it out even if you don't plan to sign up for jugding, as it also contains a lot of extra info about how the March MCC will be run, including the complete calendar of deadlines for the whole month and other things that might be of interest to players as well as judges.

EDIT February 28th 6:40 pm CET - @Komandon and everybody else that might be interested in Magic card wording and templating, the latest video by Judge Dave ("Theoretical and Philosophical Aspects of Templating") deals exactly with that topic and explains the principles behind good templating. I recommend that video to everybody who's interested in this topic. I still want to write more about it in the future though, but before that I want to republish all my old articles, and I will do that as soon as I'm done with the finishing touches to the challenges for the March MCC. I want to (and should) be able to post Round 1 tomorrow night.

[bravelion83]

Round 1 for March is up, also containing the first episode of my own murder mystery story: "One pierced heart, two mindful horns". That's the thing that took me one whole month to make and that I've just finished two days ago. After the month is over, I will publish an annotated pdf version on my own Google Drive, showing all intended hidden clues and red herrings in the text. As I said both in the judge signup thread and in Round 1's OP, that's just something extra, completely disconnected by and indepedent on the challenges. I just did it to add some flavor to the month. As I started, I didn't know what I was getting into... it's the biggest public attempt at being a writer I've made so far in my life. There is only a single one that's even bigger but that's private. Well, enjoy it! Clues and red herrings are already there in Episode 1. If you enjoy the idea, try to solve the mystery, but if you don't feel like doing that, it's perfectly fine, and it will not influence your advancement in this month's contest in any way. Episodes 2, 3, and 4 will come out with each new round.

I've also gone on with the republishing of "The Lion's Lair", today #11 - Monthly (Custom Card) review is also up. It's a look at how the MCC was doing nine years ago. It's been very interesting to take a look back, and if anybody is interested, that article contains my own thoughts about the current rubric right as it was created, the "original intent" if you will. I'm happy I'm republishing this today, I feel like it's a very appropriate time after the tests we ran in January... The rest of the articles will follow in the next days.

EDIT @netn10 I see you've posted this card twice in the February Round 3 round thread, you might want to fix that:

card

Show

Hide

Nekker Savages
Creature - Ogre Warrior (Uncommon)
Flash
Haste
Squad - Sacrifice a creature or a Food
XP - 10 (When this creature dies, you get 10 XP counters.)
2/2

XP

Show

Hide

(You start at level 1. When you gain the next level, your XP becomes 0.)
Level 2, 20XP: You gain 5 life.
Level 3, 40XP: Creatures you control gets +1/+1.
Level 4, 60XP: At the beginning of your upkeep, draw a card.
Level 5, 80XP: Spells you cast cost 1 less to cast.
Level 6, 100XP: At the beginning of your upkeep, destroy up to two target permanents.

[Lorn Asbord Schutta]

@bravelion83 For March round 1, if my submission has an activated ability involving sacrifice of another creature as a cost and an ability to gain control of Bubble Smuggler, does it satisfy subchallange 2?

[bravelion83]

@bravelion83 For March round 1, if my submission has an activated ability involving sacrifice of another creature as a cost and an ability to gain control of Bubble Smuggler, does it satisfy subchallange 2?

As long as it manages to kill the fish under all possible circumstances and even if its controller turns it face up, then yes. If either ability (the sacrifice one and/or the control changing one) has any restriction that might exclude the fish in some circumstances, then no. For example, the following WOULD pass Subchallenge 2, mode 1:

CARDNAME {unknown}UB (probably given the effects?)
Creature — Whatever (?)
Disguise {unknown}UB
When CARDNAME enters the battlefield or is turned face up, gain control of target creature an opponent controls.
{unknown}, Sacrifice another creature: CARDNAME gains indestructible until end of turn.
Some flavor text.
?/?

You can always take control of the fish (with infinite mana to pay the ward 2 cost of the face-down fish and even if your opponent turns it face up in response) and then you can always sacrifice it. Good. Instead, the following would NOT pass Subchallenge 2, mode 1:

CARDNAME {unknown}UB (probably given the effects?)
Creature — Whatever (?)
Disguise {unknown}UB
When CARDNAME enters the battlefield or is turned face up, gain control of target creature with power 2 or less an opponent controls.
{unknown}, Sacrifice another creature: CARDNAME gains indestructible until end of turn.
Some flavor text.
?/?

You can target the face-down fish to gain control of it (its power is 2 and you have infinite mana to pay the ward 2 cost, so no problem there), but your opponent will always turn it face up in response (it's part of the Subchallenge mode), so when the ability tries to resolve the fish's power is 6 so it's no longer a legal target and it would "fizzle" (be removed from the stack with no effect). You wouldn't gain control of the fish, let alone sacrifice it. The same is true if you move the restriction to the sacrifice ability, the following would also NOT pass Subchallenge 2, mode 1:

CARDNAME {unknown}UB (probably given the effects?)
Creature — Whatever (?)
Disguise {unknown}UB
When CARDNAME enters the battlefield or is turned face up, gain control of target creature an opponent controls.
{unknown}, Sacrifice another creature with power 2 or less: CARDNAME gains indestructible until end of turn.
Some flavor text.
?/?

Here you would always gain control of the fish, but your opponent will turn it face up in response, so you will gain control of the 6/5 face-up fish. Its power is 6, so you can't sacrifice it because it doesn't have power 2 or less as required by the last ability's activation cost. Thus, Subchallenge 2, mode 1 is NOT met here.

Hope this helps. Adding this to the clarifications spoiler.

[haywire]

@bravelion83 for march round 1, if my card only deals 2 damage to the fish, but has an ability like Karlov Watchdog that prevents my opponent from turning it face up, does that satisfy the subchallenge?

edited to add: and is the answer different if my card simply says "Permanents can't be turned face up" to remove questions of conditionality?

[bravelion83]

@bravelion83 for march round 1, if my card only deals 2 damage to the fish, but has an ability like Karlov Watchdog that prevents my opponent from turning it face up, does that satisfy the subchallenge?

edited to add: and is the answer different if my card simply says "Permanents can't be turned face up" to remove questions of conditionality?

It depends. Your opponent will always turn the fish face up in response but only if they're able to of course, like everything else in Magic. You can only do things you're allowed to do. Given that you say that "permanents can't be turned face up", your opponent won't be allowed to turn the fish face up so they won't because they can't, so the fish stays a face-down 2/2 with ward 2, and dealing only 2 damage to the fish will be enough to kill it. Ward is not a problem as you have infinite mana. Any wording that unconditionally prevents your opponent from turning their permanents face up will work for this purpose, but the Watchdog's effect is NOT "unconditional", as it only lets you do it on your turn, so it does NOT count. If you remove all conditionality using a wording like the one you proposed in your last question, then yes, it will always work so Subchallenge 2, mode 1 will indeed be met. For it to be satisfied, you have to be able to do it at any time, regardless of whose turn it is. Hope this helps. Adding this to the clarifications.