The MCC Discussion Thread

[netn10]

Case of the Meticulously Framed W
Enchantment - Case (Rare)
When this Case enters the battlefield, exile target creature until this Case leaves the battlefield. If you can't, sacrifice this Case.
At the beginning of your upkeep, you may collect evidence 4. If you do, investigate. If you don't, sacrifice this Case.
To solve — You control three or more Clues.
Solved — Sacrifice this Case: Put the exiled creature into its owner's graveyard.

@netn10 Here collect evidence is a cost (that you may pay to investigate, that's an effect). This submission as is does NOT pass Subchallenge 1.

As a reference, here is the definition of a cost:

118.1. A cost is an action or payment necessary to take another action or to stop another action from taking place. To pay a cost, a player carries out the instructions specified by the spell, ability, or effect that contains that cost.

And here is that of effect:

609.1. An effect is something that happens in the game as a result of a spell or ability. When a spell, activated ability, or triggered ability resolves, it may create one or more one-shot or continuous effects. Static abilities may create one or more continuous effects. Text itself is never an effect.

I've changed my card a little bit, and I hope it's fine now.

[bravelion83]

I'm sorry, I didn't realize the thread had gone to a new page and instead of replying to netn10 here I had already edited my post on the previous page:

EDIT March 13th 10:30 pm CET - I've just seen that netn10 has edited their submission, and I can say that the edited submission DOES pass Subchallenge 1. I have also seen AnotherAlias's submission, but there is nothing to say there as they, as it's always a player's right to do, chose to give up that Subchallenge and didn't use collect evidence at all. That's also a perfectly valid choice.

EDIT March 14th 0:30 am CET - I've just seen slimytrout's submission, and it DOES pass Subchallenge 1. Only @Lorn Asbord Schutta and @void_nothing are left. Design deadline in about 6 hours from this post. I will be sleeping for sure. I will officially close the round as soon as I wake up tomorrow.

EDIT March 14th 1 am CET - I'm going to bed. If Lorn and/or void post in the round thread, I will see it when I wake up. Goodnight everyone!

[bravelion83]

My own judgments for March Round 2 are complete, and again with more than a whole day for you all to comment on them. I'm also counting on @Ink-Treader's ones to be finalized by tomorrow. We're on time, perfectly keeping up with the clock! Obviously, Round 3 will be posted only after the judging deadline of Round 2, only then judgments are final. And always remember that if your request involves any third parties, you should post it to your judge via pm. If it doesn't, feel free to post it here.

[Ink-Treader]

My March MCC Round 2 judgments are also finished.

[bravelion83]

March Round 3 is up, as well as the third episode of my murder mystery story. As promised, pairings have been determined by the sum of the scores of the first two rounds, which I detail in the round OP.

[haywire]

@bravelion83 as a note on the last round and my comments about subchallenge 1 and its unintuitivity/rules density, they were mostly driven by your comment that there was no such effect in the printed set, and my knowledge of evidence collector. Most of the frustration on my end was because I couldn't figure out how that card was still a cost, and so I had no idea how to design for that subchallenge if I couldn't figure that out, either intuitively or via reading the comprehensive rules.

Just wanted to note for the future that with the revelation that evidence collector was an effect, all my issues with the subchallenge and your "out-of-the-box" design idea were resolved. Simply a misunderstanding/miscommunication.

[bravelion83]

@bravelion83 as a note on the last round and my comments about subchallenge 1 and its unintuitivity/rules density, they were mostly driven by your comment that there was no such effect in the printed set, and my knowledge of evidence collector. Most of the frustration on my end was because I couldn't figure out how that card was still a cost, and so I had no idea how to design for that subchallenge if I couldn't figure that out, either intuitively or via reading the comprehensive rules.

Just wanted to note for the future that with the revelation that evidence collector was an effect, all my issues with the subchallenge and your "out-of-the-box" design idea were resolved. Simply a misunderstanding/miscommunication.

Misunderstandings happen in real life, let alone on a forum where we can't speak by voice but only by writing. Me not doing my due diligence and research and just assuming that all MKM cards used it as a cost because they just presented it as a cost mechanic when it was announced, didn't help either. I'll keep this feedback in mind for the future. Thank you. Round 3 should go much more smoothly in that regard, or at least I hope.

In about half an hour from this post I will have to go to run some errands, I'll be back tonight and write clarifications for Round 3 then.

EDIT - Done. Clarifications have been written. Now I'm awaiting your card designs!

[Komandon]

@bravelion83 as part of the resolution for the making a creature suspected does it have to on the battlefield already such as reanimating, cloaking, make a token and it's suspected etc. Such as the create a 1/1 Skeleton token, +2/+2 and haste until end of turn. It's suspected. (Not that phrasing. I know it's not formatted or gramme correct. Just a quick example that came to mind)

[bravelion83]

@bravelion83 as part of the resolution for the making a creature suspected does it have to on the battlefield already such as reanimating, cloaking, make a token and it's suspected etc. Such as the create a 1/1 Skeleton token, +2/+2 and haste until end of turn. It's suspected. (Not that phrasing. I know it's not formatted or gramme correct. Just a quick example that came to mind)

If your spell creates a creature token and then, after the token has been created, suspects it, then I would say that it's a typical case of letter vs. spirit of the challenge. The letter is met: when you get to suspect something, the token is already on the battlefied so you do suspect a creature, though one that you've just created during an earlier step of the resolution of the same spell. The spirit though is that your spell suspects creatures that were already on the battlefield before that spell was cast. If I were to judge a card that creates a token and then suspects that same token, I would probably deduct some points in Main Challenge for spirit of the challenge not met, but if all you care about is the letter of the challenge, that would be satisfied. Essentially the creature(s) you suspect have to be on the battlefield in the moment you suspect them. Hope this helps.

[Komandon]

@bravelion83 as part of the resolution for the making a creature suspected does it have to on the battlefield already such as reanimating, cloaking, make a token and it's suspected etc. Such as the create a 1/1 Skeleton token, +2/+2 and haste until end of turn. It's suspected. (Not that phrasing. I know it's not formatted or gramme correct. Just a quick example that came to mind)

If your spell creates a creature token and then, after the token has been created, suspects it, then I would say that it's a typical case of letter vs. spirit of the challenge. The letter is met: when you get to suspect something, the token is already on the battlefied so you do suspect a creature, though one that you've just created during an earlier step of the resolution of the same spell. The spirit though is that your spell suspects creatures that were already on the battlefield before that spell was cast. If I were to judge a card that creates a token and then suspects that same token, I would probably deduct some points in Main Challenge for spirit of the challenge not met, but if all you care about is the letter of the challenge, that would be satisfied. Essentially the creature(s) you suspect have to be on the battlefield in the moment you suspect them. Hope this helps.

Token was a quick example but I think the idea I was going with would then be deducted for the same reasons. Such as me giving them a create from their graveyard (since mine would be odd like giving them Phage of Leveler) or manifesting top card of their library.

For subchallenge two mode two is positive only a power or toughness temporary or with counters or would a boost a role token or similar count. While not a counter would boost the P/T. Using these as gages incase I while researching find a mechanic or boost that while not listed in the question may be similar. Likely won't but looking just in case.

[bravelion83]

Token was a quick example but I think the idea I was going with would then be deducted for the same reasons. Such as me giving them a create from their graveyard (since mine would be odd like giving them Phage of Leveler) or manifesting top card of their library.

You can still do that. If you have a strong design that earns you more that what you may be losing in Main Challenge, you'll end up gaining points. It's the same reasoning as for the Subchallenges. What you cannot do is get a zero in Main Challenge, because that's a DQ, but if you have, for example, a 1.5/2 in Main Challenge you might make up for it in other areas of the rubric. In the end, it's your choice, and it's a strategic one. What I'm saying is that the intent of the Main Challenge is to suspect creatures that are already on the battlefield, but as long as you meet the two requirements (instant or sorcery, and using suspect) the letter of the challenge is met and you're not DQ'ed, which I believe is the most important thing from the point of view of a player.

For subchallenge two mode two is positive only a power or toughness temporary or with counters

This has been in the clarifications since I first posted the round thread: as long as the bonus is positive, both of those count.

or would a boost a role token or similar count. While not a counter would boost the P/T.

Literally everything that gives a positive bonus to power and/or toughness counts.

Using these as gages incase I while researching find a mechanic or boost that while not listed in the question may be similar. Likely won't but looking just in case.

No problem, these additional clarifications might be useful to other players too even if you end up making something different.

[haywire]

@bravelion83 for subchallenge 1, would a card that suspects all creatures count? The de facto result is that if the opponent controls a creature, it will become suspected, which is the same de facto result as a spell that specifically suspects a creature an opponent controls; in both cases, if the opponent has a creature, it is suspected, and if the opponent doesn't have a creature, then there's nothing to suspect.

[bravelion83]

@bravelion83 for subchallenge 1, would a card that suspects all creatures count? The de facto result is that if the opponent controls a creature, it will become suspected, which is the same de facto result as a spell that specifically suspects a creature an opponent controls; in both cases, if the opponent has a creature, it is suspected, and if the opponent doesn't have a creature, then there's nothing to suspect.

I guess you're actually talking about Subchallenge 2 mode 1, Subchallenge 1 is the one about color identity. The answer is that a spell that says nothing but "Suspect all creatures." does NOT meet Subchallenge 2 mode 1. The key point here is that "if the opponent has a creature" that I've underlined in your quote. Nothing in that Subchallenge mode allows you to assume that. For that mode to be met, the end result must be that "at least one" (see the text of that Subchallenge mode) creature an opponent controls ends up being suspected. But if that underlined "if" condition is not true, aka the opponent has no creatures, then zero creatures an opponent controls end up being suspected and zero is NOT "at least one", so that Subchallenge mode is NOT met. Essentially you have to ask yourself: does this spell require (as in not just "maybe potentially include", but "always necessarily results in") "at least one" (and zero is not that) creature among those it suspects to be controlled by an opponent? The answer must be "yes, always" and not just "yes, but... maybe... sometimes... only if some condition is true... it depends..." Hope this helps. Adding this to the clarifications.

[void_nothing]

With the month soon coming to a close, is anyone interested in hosting April's contest?

[haywire]

@bravelion83 would a spell that says "Target opponent chooses a creature they control. Suspect that creature" similarly fail subchallenge 2-1 (which is the one I was referencing, thank you for understanding my mistype), since it fails if that player doesn't control a creature?

[bravelion83]

@bravelion83 would a spell that says "Target opponent chooses a creature they control. Suspect that creature" similarly fail subchallenge 2-1 (which is the one I was referencing, thank you for understanding my mistype), since it fails if that player doesn't control a creature?

Yes, exactly. Perfect reasoning, you've got it. Notice that if you change that to "Choose target creature an opponent controls. Suspect that creature", with you making the choice and explicitly targeting the creature, then it meets that Subchallenge mode as you can't even cast it if your opponent has no creatures because of how targeting works. Something like that is what you have to do if you want to meet that Subchallenge mode.

[slimytrout]

@bravelion83 I understand what you're saying here, but I think it goes against the text of the subchallenge as it currently stands:

usually worded as "suspect target/a creature an opponent controls"

Obviously the "target creature" part is clear enough, but if you allow the suspecting of "a creature an opponent controls" then that opens the door for spells that would resolve even if your opponent(s) control no creatures, so you should probably either remove that option or relax your criteria.

[bravelion83]

@bravelion83 I understand what you're saying here, but I think it goes against the text of the subchallenge as it currently stands:

usually worded as "suspect target/a creature an opponent controls"

Obviously the "target creature" part is clear enough, but if you allow the suspecting of "a creature an opponent controls" then that opens the door for spells that would resolve even if your opponent(s) control no creatures, so you should probably either remove that option or relax your criteria.

Correct. I'm removing the "a" right now. Thank you for making me notice.

[Komandon]

Sorry for the tardiness. Last edit I think was 11:27 EST so hopefully that's ok. I would have asked for an extension but it's too late, unfair to others and the reason I rather not get into online in public. I'm sorry.

[slimytrout]

Sorry for the tardiness.

You definitely don't need to apologize -- you're ahead of the deadline, so you'd be within your rights to keep editing until 11:58.

the reason I rather not get into online in public.

Just so you know for the future, there's no requirement to provide a reason when asking for an extension. They're provided at a host's discretion, so a reason might make them more likely to say yes, but still not a requirement.

[bravelion83]

slimytrout is correct but I want to remind everyone that the guidelines document requires the host to grant the first extension asked. What the host can decide at their discretion is the duration of the extension (24 hours is ordinary practice but not required, this is what the host can decide), but they can't deny the first extension, only further extensions after the first one.

[Komandon]

@slimytrout @bravelion83 thank you. I'm not use to just asking without an explanation (this is life in general).

I know plenty of issues with my card but I'm ok with it. I should have asked yesterday morning for an extension. So this is a learning experience for me for future contests.

Thank you both.

[void_nothing]

My February MCC final round judgments should be complete tomorrow.

[bravelion83]

And my own for March Round 3 are complete right now. Once again, more than a day before the judging deadline! We're actually proving that what we did in January is repeatable! I'm so excited for that! Just like for earlier rounds, I'm available for any clarification request. Just remember to send them via pm if they involve any third parties in any way!

When was the last time we had four players in the finals? It was so long ago that I can't even remember, but if there are no adjustments to the scores it's about to happen right now.

[Ink-Treader]

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!