MTG Salvation

This is actually kind of cool, it never occurred to me that they were focusing on the shard/wedge's central color being the middle and going around the wheel to fill in the rest of the order. Glad I learned something new today.

Round 2 is up.

I'm a little confused by the parameters of "can make," since it seems like very many cards could in theory kill an Emrakul if the right situation arose. For example, would Prey Upon work, or does it need to be able to do it on its own? Or how about a version of Prey Upon that could give +13/+13? Alternatively, does creature combat work, i.e., does Deadly Recluse count? And does it need to be definitely work, or would Diabolic Edict be okay? I could keep going with corner cases but I think you get the idea.

Would an instant that gets rid of, but doesn’t target or deal damage to Emrakul automatically fail? You said that all instants fail in the clarifications, but as best I can tell, cyclonic rift should pass this challenge.

tl;dr - Go directly to check the "in summary" box below.

I expected this to potentially require more clarifications, even though I've tried to word the challenge in the clearest way possible. Ok, let's go.

Quote from Cardz5000 »

Would an instant that gets rid of, but doesn’t target or deal damage to Emrakul automatically fail? You said that all instants fail in the clarifications, but as best I can tell, cyclonic rift should pass this challenge.

Cyclonic Rift can't even target Emrakul in the first place, so it definitely fails the challenge. Remember the DEBT acronym for protection: "protection from instants" means Emrakul can't be damaged by any instants (potentially relevant), enchanted/equipped/fortified or blocked by any instants (not relevant for instants), or targeted by any instants (very relevant). What's true is that if you design a non-targeted bounce effect, such as "Return all creatures to their owners' hands", even as an instant, that will pass the main challenge because protection doesn't kick in (that effect doesn't target or deal damage to her) and so when it resolves Emrakul will actually leave the battlefield despite her protection from instants. This is what you have to ask yourself: as the card I've designed resolves, will it cause Emrakul to leave the battlefield? Does my card avoid any built-in way for Emrakul to return? If the answer to both questions is yes, your card passes the main challenge.
But you probaly meant an overloaded Cyclonic Rift. It's true that using overload will cause the Rift to not target Emrakul anymore, so it would work, but the card needs to always work to get rid of Emrakul, not only under some given circumstances. Cyclonic Rift only works if you overload it, and not always, so it still wouldn't pass the main challenge. Other examples: Evacuation would pass the main challenge despite being an instant, as it doesn't target, so it will successfully return Emrakul to hand. Whelming Wave would also pass, it's a sorcery so it would work either way even if it targeted. Unsummon doesn't pass the main challenge because it can't target Emrakul, Silent Departure would pass because it can target Emrakul (it's a sorcery) and return her to hand.

Quote from slimytrout »

I'm a little confused by the parameters of "can make," since it seems like very many cards could in theory kill an Emrakul if the right situation arose.

This is why I expected more clarification to be needed.

For example, would Prey Upon work, or does it need to be able to do it on its own?

The wording of the main challenge doesn't forbid cards that need the help of other cards to work. It forbids cards that can't work and/or that have a built-in way for Emrakul to return. Prey Upon is a sorcery, so it has no problem with Emrakul's protection from instants, it can cause her to leave the battlefield if she dies in the fight, and has no built-in way for Emrakul to return. So Prey Upon would pass the main challenge.

Or how about a version of Prey Upon that could give +13/+13?

Even better, it makes the fight easier for your creature to kill Emrakul. Also notice that it doesn't matter whether your creature survives the fight or not.

Alternatively, does creature combat work, i.e., does Deadly Recluse count?

The main challenge doesn't specify anything about combat, so cards that would make her die in combat do pass the main challenge. Deadly Recluse would pass the main challenge, because by having deathtouch it will always make Emrakul die. If it didn't have deathtouch it wouldn't count, because yes, it would be able to block Emrakul, but that wouldn't cause Emrakul to die. Emrakul always dying, and thus leaving the battlefield, because of your card is what matters. A card that can only kill Emrakul some of the times doesn't pass the main challenge.

And does it need to be definitely work, or would Diabolic Edict be okay?

No, Diabolic Edict doesn't pass the main challenge. If Emrakul's controller has another creature, they can (and very probably will) just sacrifice the other creature. Nowhere in the wording of the challenge it's specified that Emrakul is the only creature that your opponent controls, so you can't count on that. And yes, the card needs to always work to pass the main challenge.

I could keep going with corner cases but I think you get the idea.

I do, and that's why I've written that last bolded sentence just above this quote.

Quote from IcariiFA »

any instant automatically fails the Main Challenge, and will be thus DQ'ed. You've been warned.

An instant that returned all creatures to their owners hands would get around it's protection and should be legal, no?

I've seen this only after writing all of the above, because it was in the round thread and not here. You're right, and in fact I've just slightly modified the wording of that clarification to reflect this. void_nothing gave you the correct answer:

Quote from void_nothing »

Quote from IcariiFA »

any instant automatically fails the Main Challenge, and will be thus DQ'ed. You've been warned.

An instant that returned all creatures to their owners hands would get around it's protection and should be legal, no?

Absolutely, if it doesn't DEBT then protection doesn't stop it.

That's a new one. I have mana tags for my Round 2 submission around "GGUU", and it's displaying as UUGG. I'd prefer to not get docked points because the site is re-ordering my mana symbols.

Quote from Eventide Sojourner »

That's a new one. I have mana tags for my Round 2 submission around "GGUU", and it's displaying as UUGG. I'd prefer to not get docked points because the site is re-ordering my mana symbols.

Wow, I didn't expect this, but I checked the source code of your post (via quote) and it's true! Thank you for mentioning this, if you hadn't I wouldn't know about such errors and I would have certainly deducted something for the wrong order of mana symbols if you happened to be in my bracket. This probably means that we judges will have to check the source code of every single submission post. Not too much more work to me, as I practically already do when quoting the cards in my bracket, I just have to remember to focus on it. But judges who don't have the habit to quote the cards they're judging should probably pay attention to this and check the source code too.

Since I'm fairly confident the mana tags haven't started reordering symbols: Did you edit your post? If so, when?

One of the really awful things about this forum's software is that edits made too close to when the post was originally made will not only not display, but will prevent any further editing that isn't "substantial" enough as well. I would suggest editing your post again and typing, say, "placeholder" at the bottom, then removing it a few minutes later once the correct text is displaying.

This challenge is really weird. Non-creatures need to always work, but creature cards can assume she is attacking? What if the creature card can only kill her if she blocks it?

Diabolic Edict fails because they might have another creature to sac, but Deadly Recluse passes even though they might have a Vigor

Maybe I should just have done a puzzle instead, showing you what your opponent has in every single one of their zones and saying "design a card that can solve this puzzle". I'm not perfect, and my judgments and challenges aren't either. I wish they were, and I was. I knew this challenge could cause confusion, but I did it anyway because I really liked it for its flavor: you have to end the Promised End herself. I guess I could have done things differently, I'm not denying it. But I'm also striving to make the best I can in answering clarification requests and such. Maybe I should have just given up on trying to make this work and come up with a different challenge? I don't know, probably I should have. I just know that I'm trying to do the best I can, and that it's too late to change the challenge now even if I wanted. I apologize.

I like this challenge, even if it might be a little fuzzily defined.

Quote from The_Hittite »

Wait, wasn't I eliminated last round?

Yes, my bad. I had copied Algernone25's scores from round 1 before they adjusted them to break the tie, so I still had you tied for third place in round 1 in my Excel file. I will judge the card you submitted after I'm done with my bracket. My apologies.

Just wanted to get in a note regarding Subchallenge 2 for my card, as neither Algernone nor void has posted a review of my card yet.

The word "endure" appears in my flavor text. The word "endure" is not derivative of "end". The etymology of endure goes back to Latin "indurare".

I would never have assumed it was - you were never in danger of losing points on subchallenges from me, but thanks.

I've started on my judgments but not finished them; I will not have them done before the deadline and I am, at this point, exhausted. I am going to have to post the DCC round soon and then get sleep. I promise I will finish as early as possible tomorrow.

Quote from Eventide Sojourner »

Just wanted to get in a note regarding Subchallenge 2 for my card, as neither Algernone nor void has posted a review of my card yet.

The word "endure" appears in my flavor text. The word "endure" is not derivative of "end". The etymology of endure goes back to Latin "indurare".

Yes, this is true. I've just looked at your card and I confirm as host (and thus creator of the challenges) that it passes subchallenge 2 without any problem, just like void_nothing has already told you.

Quote from void_nothing »

I've started on my judgments but not finished them; I will not have them done before the deadline and I am, at this point, exhausted. I am going to have to post the DCC round soon and then get sleep. I promise I will finish as early as possible tomorrow.

No problem as long as you can make it within tomorrow night. I had said that a 24-hour extension for judging could be granted, and that's exactly what I'm doing now. New judging deadline is Sunday, July 21st 23:59 EST (no further time extensions will be granted this round).

My judgings have been posted and finalized.

From group A, I have issued a disqualification to Netn10. While his card in the most technical sense works in that it gets that physical copy of Emrakul off the board, the only way to not instantly lose the game is to give them another copy of Emrakul. This leaves you in the same state as you were when you started - staring down Emmy and needing a spell to be rid of it. I do not consider this as satisfying the main challenge. If the DQ is overturned, his score of 19 will stand. DQ has been overturned at moderator's request, Score stands as posted.

From group B, I have issued a disqualification to Hemlock. His card reduces Emrakul to a 1/1 with no abilities and makes the next creature he plays with at least 1 power finish the job with a mandatory fight trigger, but the clarifications make clear the removal has to be self-contained within the single card submitted. Hemlock's card alone does not take Emrakul off the board, so the main challenge is not satisfied. If the DQ is overturned, his score of 20 will stand.

Quote from Algernone25 »

Judgings are FINAL. Whine about them, or not.

Buddy, you're already past the original deadline. These had better be final.

None the less, I thank all judges for the time they have or will put in for critiques.

Quote from bravelion83 »

(3/3) Flavor - I had to google the name of the character to know if it was an already existing character, either in MTG or elsewhere. It turns out it doesn't, but that's how I discovered that the word "Möngke" means "eternal" in the Mongolian language. I guess that's intended as some kind of hidden Easter egg in the flavor text, and it works perfectly in that regard. No problems with the card name, and the card concept is also very good, with the association between gods and enchantments we've seen in Theros.

Quote from Algernone25 »

Flavor: 2/3 - Artifact Enchantment and the diefic reference makes it obvious this is supposed to be from Theros. Having a name more suited for Tarkir (Mongolian, the internet tells me) bugs me for several reasons. Also the flavor text cuts off at the bottom of the card, it's a bit too long.

I'm surprised you guys actually googled it. Though, yes, Möngke is a name meaning "eternal," very rarely given, as I understand it. "Enebish" is a more common name, roughly translating to "not this one," and is meant to confuse and dissuade evil spirits from messing with the bearer of the name. Mongolian naming conventions give people three names. Their given name, their father's name, and then their family name. For centuries, family names were not tracked (there was a big thing in the 90s about recovering them, actually) and so everyone had two names. The character in the flavor text of this card is effectively "Enebish, son of Möngke."

Quote from Algernone25 »

Flavor: 2/3 - Artifact Enchantment and the diefic reference makes it obvious this is supposed to be from Theros. Having a name more suited for Tarkir (Mongolian, the internet tells me) bugs me for several reasons. Also the flavor text cuts off at the bottom of the card, it's a bit too long.

Yeah, just like how an artifact having color makes it obvious that it's from Alara.

No, this is meant to be a different plane altogether. Not Theros and not Tarkir. A plane of old gods, who have long since died or faded away into nothingness, but who still leave behind remnants of their power. The card I designed for round one was meant to be from the same plane. The same for the card I would have designed for round three.

Quote from Algernone25 »

Uniqueness: 1.5/3 - It's like Toxic Deluge and Ratchet Bomb had a one-night stand, and this is what came of it. The influence is obvious.

Ratchet Bomb has an entirely different mechanic and different converted mana cost. Toxic Deluge kills in an entirely different way and is an entirely different card type. No card in existence has a design remotely close to the card I posted. Maybe there's enough similarity to ratchet bomb to warrant a half point, but half score? What are you smoking?

Quote from Algernone25 »

DQ has been overturned at moderator's request

Well, thank you, but I'm not a moderator. I'm just the host for the month.

Quote from Mr. Rithaniel »

I'm surprised you guys actually googled it.

I always do as a judge if a card has something that my senses tell me must have a meaning or be there for a reason, yet I don't understand it. In this case, the "o with umlauts" made my judge senses tickle, and so I googled the name. I'm far from knowing everything, but Google kinda does! And anyway, my knowledge about languages stops at the three ones I know: Italian (my mother tongue), English (I'm half British and very proud of my English origins), and French. I know close to nothing about any other language on Earth, and I have a very high respect for all, but especially for the ones that I don't know and have a whole culture behind. I must and want to respect that unknown (to me) culture as best I can, because it is in no way superior to mine.

Though, yes, Möngke is a name meaning "eternal," very rarely given, as I understand it. "Enebish" is a more common name, roughly translating to "not this one," and is meant to confuse and dissuade evil spirits from messing with the bearer of the name. Mongolian naming conventions give people three names. Their given name, their father's name, and then their family name. For centuries, family names were not tracked (there was a big thing in the 90s about recovering them, actually) and so everyone had two names. The character in the flavor text of this card is effectively "Enebish, son of Möngke."

It's true that every day you learn something new. This is what I've learned today. Thank you, and again a lot of respect to the Mongolians in general, and to you personally if you are Mongolian or have Mongolian heritage.

I will not answer the rest as it wasn't directly addressed to me, and as I've already said I'm not a moderator, but as host for the month I would be very pleased if everybody kept a low tone. I'm sure you all understand, and I thank you for that.

Scoring is done. Congrats to Jimmy Groove, slimytrout, and IcariiFA for advancing to the Finals.

Let me first state: I am not appealing my scores. Just adding some clarity.

The version of this card I have in a design file is Rare, but due to having an Overload cost at 3GGGUUU (yes, let that sink in for a moment - wording is also slightly different to accomodate). Without the Overload (and the CCDD casting cost), it felt pushed but not unreasonable at Uncommon for Sorcery speed. It was also meant to be a Simic card for a post-War set that had Guild abilities crossing (hence, why it had Overload). As far as inspiration, it was meant as a riff on Plasm Capture. It used to be based on the creature's CMC, but Ravenous Slime and The Mimeoplasm nudged me in the direction I chose.

As far as a "blowout" card, it only gets that way when demonstrably unfair cards are already on the other side of the board, like most Legendary Eldrazi or Death's Shadow. It's why you can't target your own creatures.

Quote from bravelion83 »

It's true that every day you learn something new. This is what I've learned today. Thank you, and again a lot of respect to the Mongolians in general, and to you personally if you are Mongolian or have Mongolian heritage.

I would be very surprised if I found out that I had Mongolian heritage. If anything, I'm mostly Scots-Irish. I just randomly find myself researching trends and conventions from different cultures, from time to time.

Also, I have respect for your Italian and English roots as well.

Quote from bravelion83 »

I would be very pleased if everybody kept a low tone. I'm sure you all understand, and I thank you for that.

Of course. Perhaps I came out of the gate too aggressively. I do massively appreciate all the work provided by judges, and my comments are in good humor, with no intention of changing any stated scores. If anything, my reactions are as if a referee at some sports game made a call that I thought was ridiculous. It's not that I would ask for anything to change. They are the referee and it's their call. They have to follow their own instinct. I have instincts, too, though.

So that's it. It's over.

That's a dramatic way to say that round 3 is up. The final round. Both of this month and of the MCC as a whole on this site.

Just wanted to make sure, does it count if we just use the name in the rules text? So, would a card named "End of the BBQ" that just said "End of the BBQ deals 3 damage to target creature" qualify? It seems like it currently works within the challenge as written, but it also feels a little like cheating, so I thought I should check.

Quote from slimytrout »

Just wanted to make sure, does it count if we just use the name in the rules text? So, would a card named "End of the BBQ" that just said "End of the BBQ deals 3 damage to target creature" qualify? It seems like it currently works within the challenge as written, but it also feels a little like cheating, so I thought I should check.

No, it was not supposed to count. And yes, that's been yet another mistake on my part. I just didn't think about the fact that you could just repeat the card's name in the rules text and get away with it. That's totally NOT what I wanted this challenge to be. You were supposed to have a very hard time trying to find a way to do it. Doing it like this feels not a little but a lot like cheating to me, even if it's not technically because it does meet the challenge as I've written it. My challenge idea was a whole other thing, and much more difficult than how both you and IcariiFA have made it with your submissions.
Honestly, I'm torn between two options now: either regretfully accepting your submissions because it's too late to adjust the challenge while it's already underway, or modify the challenge adding a sentence that explicitly forbids this. After all, you still have more than three days before the deadline, so you should have all the time to come up with something different if I choose the latter option. I need a little more time to think about what I want to do.
One thing is for certain: I didn't expect and didn't want the last month of MCC on this site to go like this...

EDIT - Ok, I think I've reached my decision. I'm rewording the challenge to explicitly forbid it but I will push the deadlines back one day in exchange to give you more time to come up with new submissions. I've modified the round thread OP, and I've also sent a pm to the three contestants to make sure they see this, so it's official now.

I am really sorry to everybody. This wasn't supposed to go like this... and you better not know what I'm telling myself right now.

For the record, my current submission should still work independent of the revision ("until the end of your next turn"). I just wanted to make sure because obviously it would impact what I ultimately submitted. (And I revised my message from "a lot like cheating" to "a little like cheating" once IcariiFA's post went up because I didn't want to seem like a tattletale. )