This note will probably remain the same the whole month: This month of the DCC will all be taking place here on MTGSalvation, MTGNexus will formally open to the public in mid-July, the first MTGNexus DCC will begin in August.
This is true for the MCC too. This is the last MCC on MTGSalvation, starting next month (August) the MCC will be on MTGNexus as well. Multiple times in my life, in various situations, I've thought to myself "now it's over". Sometimes it actually was, other times it was not. Reading about this site's supposed closure was one of them. But this round really marks the end of the MCC on this site. This contest will have a new home starting in just a little more than a week. As far as this site is concerned, this is it. It's really over.
Main Challenge - Design an instant or sorcery card that contains the word "end" in its rules text AND in the card name. Yes, both. The instance of "end" in the rules text can't be just a repetition of the card name. You can repeat the card name in the card's rules text, but that does NOT count as the instance of "end" in the rules text. Please see clarifications.
EDIT 7/22 7 PM EDT: Please, note that the Main Challenge has been slightly modified to forbid the repetition of the card name in the rules text. That was never supposed to count in my mind. It was just an unintended loophole. In exchange, I've pushed both deadlines back one day to give more time for the contestants to come up with new designs that satisfy this additional rule. I am really sorry for this and I apologize to everyone.
Subchallenge 1 - None of the following phrases are contained in the card's rules text: "end of turn", "end step", "end of combat".
Subchallenge 2 - Your card is not mythic rare.
Main Challenge
• NEW: synonyms (like "cease") do NOT count, neither in card name or rules text.
• NEW: You can repeat the card name in the rules text, but it will NOT count as the instance of "end" in the rules text. If you do that, you will need to put an additional instance of "end" in the rules text that's different from the card name for it to count.
• This time, it has to be specifically the word "end" in both places. Any meaning of the word is allowed, as long as the spelling doesn't change. If a verb, it has to be in a conjugation that doesn't change the spelling of the word either.
For example, all of the following DO count as card names (just examples, I'm not implying they are good card names): Wit's End (singular noun) Glorious End (singular noun, and also contains "end" in its rules text)
End of the World (singular noun)
The End Justifies the Means (singular noun, different meaning but same spelling)
At the End of the Rope (singular noun, another slightly different meaning but still the same spelling)
Civilizations End (verb, present tense, plural third person)
Civilizations Can End (following a modal verb)
Civilizations Would End (conditional verb)
End This Game! (imperative verb)
This Needs to End (infinitive verb)
Some examples of things in rules text that DO count for the Main Challenge:
An effect lasting "until end of turn".
An effect lasting "until the end of your next turn". - This would also pass subchallenge 1 (see below).
An ability triggering "at the beginning of your end step".
An effect lasting "until end of combat".
An ability triggering "at end of combat".
"End the turn." (imperative verb, see Time Stop and Glorious End) - This would also pass subchallenge 1 (see below).
"You may pay (cost) to end this effect." (infinitive verb) - This would also pass subchallenge 1 (see below).
• The word "ends" as a plural noun or as the third person of the verb "to end" is allowed, but it's the only exception to the previous point. Any other declination, form, or conjugation does NOT count.
For example, all of the following DO count as card names (just examples, I'm not implying they are good card names):
The World Ends (verb, present tense, singular third person)
The Two Ends of the Rope (plural noun)
• Derived words like "ended", "ending", or "endgame" do NOT count.
• Other words containing the "E-N-D" character sequence that are not the word "end" itself also do NOT count.
• Essentially, your card has to meet all three of the following requirements to pass the Main Challenge:
- It has to be an instant or sorcery. If it's a split card, a flip card (those from Kamigawa) or a DFC (those from Innistrad), then both halves or sides must be instant or sorcery.
- It has to have the word "end" in its rules text. If it's a split card, a flip card, or a DFC, then having it on only one half or side is enough.
- It has to have the word "end" in its card name. If it's a split card, a flip card, or a DFC, then having it on only one half or side is enough. If even just one of the three requirements isn't met, your card fails the Main Challenge, and it will thus be DQ'ed.
• The word "end" can be there in flavor text too, but that's not required. If it's there in flavor text, that does NOT count for the Main Challenge requirements.
• The word "end" can be repeated any number of times. Just make sure that it doesn't feel forced, especially if you want to abuse this point and just spam your card with "end"s. If a judge feels it is forced, you will certainly lose points in multiple areas of the rubric, though NOT in Main Challenge this time, as the Main Challenge specifically asks for that word to be there.
Subchallenge 1
• Only the literal quoted expressions are forbidden. Variations like "until the end of your next turn" are allowed (see examples above).
Subchallenge 2
• Regular rare is fine, as well as common and uncommon of course.
If you have any other question, feel free to ask in the discussion thread.
DEADLINES
Design deadline: Saturday, July 27th 23:59 EDT
Judging deadline: Wednesday, July 31st 23:59 EDT
Design - (X/3) Appeal: Do the different player psychographics (Timmy/Johhny/Spike) have a use for the card? (X/3) Elegance: Is the card easily understandable at a glance? Do all the flavor and mechanics combined as a whole make sense?
Development - (X/3) Viability: 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? (X/3) Balance: 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?
Creativity - (X/3) Uniqueness: 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”? (X/3) Flavor: 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?
Polish - (X/3) Quality: Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating. (X/2) *Main Challenge: Was the main challenge satisfied? Was it approached in a unique or interesting way? Does the card fit the intent of the challenge? (X/2) Subchallenges: One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Total: X/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
JUDGES
bravelion83
void_nothing
Algernone25
PLAYERS
IcariiFA
Jimmy Groove
slimytrout
A very important note - I absolutely want this month to be over and declare a winner on July 31st (because of the advent of MTGNexus, see top of the post). This implies two things:
1. The contest will have only three rounds again this month. My current intention is to eliminate the round that traditionally gives the most trouble as a host: the versus round. My current plan is to have normal brackets in round 1 and round 2 (maybe with each player being judged by two different judges in round 2, but still using a traditional bracket structure), and have all judges judge all cards in the third and final round. There might be variations to this plan depending on the number of players and judges we get this month. The number of players that advance each round will also depend on those variables. 2. The judging deadlines will be heavily enforced. Having only three rounds will allow me to give one or two more days than I usually do in my months for the judges to do their work. If there are still any judgments missing the first time I check the site after the judging deadline has passed, I will immediately PM the judge(s) whose judgments are still missing giving them a 24-hour time extension, then if the extension has passed and the judgments are still missing, I will do them myself and move on. I don't want the contest to be delayed by judges not submitting their judgments on time, including in the final round. By signing up as a judge this month, you're accepting these terms.
A helpful tip for those formatting their cards, I wrote it more than two years ago but it's still totally valid.
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.
Also, you should format your text cards accordingly to the forum rules (see the "this formatting looks best" spoiler in the linked OP). Again, expect deductions in Quality otherwise.
Another note that has come up in the judge signup thread, putting it here too just so that everybody knows.
For clarity, I'll say it now as the host for this month: a card will only be DQ'ed this month if it gets a zero in the Main Challenge category, and that should only happen if it completely fails the Main Challenge (for example if the Main Challenge asks for a monowhite card and the player designs a monored one, I know this is a bad example but it's the first that came to my mind), and the rubric will be applied with all the original intents behind it, which, again, I know as one of its creators.
MCC - Winner (6): Oct 2014, Apr Nov 2017, Jan 2018, Apr Jun 2019 || Host (15): Dec 2014, Apr Jul Aug Dec 2015, Mar Jul Aug Oct 2016, Feb Jul 2017, Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) || Judge (34): every month from Nov 2014 to Nov 2016 except Oct 2015, every month from Feb to Jul 2017 except Apr 2017, then Oct 2017, May Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) CCL - Winner (3): Jul 2016 (tied with Flatline), May 2017, Jul 2019 (last one here) || Host (5): Feb 2015, Mar Apr May Jun 2016 DCC - Winner (1): Mar 2015 (tied with Piar) || Host (3): May Oct 2015, Jan 2016
• The two public custom sets I've been part a part of the design team for: "Brotherhood of Ormos" - Blog post with all info - set thread - design skeleton / card list || "Extinctia: Homo Evanuit" - Blog post with all info - set thread - card list spreadsheet
• "The Lion's Lair", my article series about MTG and custom card design in particular. Latest article here. Here is the article index.Rather outdated by now, and based on the old MCC rubric, but I'm leaving this here for anybody that might be interested anyway.
• My only public attempt at being a writer: the story of my Leonin custom planeswalker Jeff Lionheart. (I have a very big one that I'm working on right now but that's private for now, and I don't know if I will ever actually publish it, and I also have ideas for multiple future ones, including one where I'm going to reprise Jeff.)
Molten End1RR
Instant (R)
Multikicker: Sacrifice a creature. (You may sacrifice any number of creatures in addition to any other costs as you cast this spell.)
Exile the top X+1 cards of your library, where X is the number of times Molten End was kicked. Until the end of your next turn, you may play those cards. The Quiet Furnace must be fed to be quiet.
End Game4B
Sorcery (R)
Each player may bid permanents. You start the bidding with a bid of any number. In turn order, each player may top the high bid. The bidding ends if the high bid stands. The high bidder sacrifices permanents equal to the high bid and each other player loses life equal to the number of permanents sacrificed this way.
End It NowW
Instant (R)
End the current phase. Cast End It Now only during a combat phase. (Player's mana pools empty. Attacking creatures are no longer attacking and blocking creatures are no longer blocking. Combat damage that has not yet been dealt is not dealt. It becomes the active player's main phase.) Is there no greater irony than peace at swordpoint?
The round is closed.
Judging may begin right now. Every judge judges all three cards.
Judges, let's try our best to declare a winner within the end of the month. Thank you. Judgments complete. All three cards within half a point. The other judgments will be decisive with scores so close from me.
Also, these will very probably be my last judgments on MTGSalvation. See you all on MTGNexus in a couple days.
End Game4B
Sorcery (R)
Each player may bid permanents. You start the bidding with a bid of any number. In turn order, each player may top the high bid. The bidding ends if the high bid stands. The high bidder sacrifices permanents equal to the high bid and each other player loses life equal to the number of permanents sacrificed this way.
Ok, I'll be honest: at first I didn't even know how to judge this card. Then I found the three similar existing cards on Gatherer: Illicit Auction, Mages' Contest, and Pain's Reward. I expect to reference these cards a lot of times in this judgment, so I'll just autocard them here so that it'll be easier to reference them. I've also checked the CR, and you know what I've discovered? The action of bidding isn't even defined in the CR! It technically doesn't even exist, but that's certainly not your fault. You've actually just discovered a bug in the CR! It doesn't happen everyday! Anyway, I'll try to do the best I can, just as usual. Let's go!
Design (2/3) Appeal - Timmy just loves the idea of having an auction during a black border game, but doesn't like either of the options for how the bidding ends. Sacrificing permanents and losing life himself aren't things he likes. I'm left wondering how Johnny could use this card. Maybe as a mega-sac outlet? But how can he be sure that he won't end up losing life instead? I think this is just too risky for Spike. She wants to have control herself over what her cards do. (2/3) Elegance - Luckily, the text explains itself what you're supposed to do, step by step. If you pass the initial stupor that this kind of card will inevitably cause you if you have never seen the three cards I mentioned at the beginning, you'll probably be fine. The text is still very long though.
Development (2.5/3) Viability - This kind of reminds me of annihilator, and this is both good and bad at the same time. Good because it feels at home in black if it has to be on a colored card, bad because it's not exactly the most fun of abilities. Also, one of the three similar existing cards is black, so this kind of effect can and has been done in black. I'll be honest: I have big problems with those cards from a modern color pie point of view, but luckily that's not the case with your card. Gaining permanent control of a creature in monored (Illicit Auction)? Just no, thanks, red should only gain control of creatures temporarily. A monored counterspell (Mages' Contest)? Seriously? That's worse than Guttural Response, a known color pie break! At least, Pain's Reward is something monoblack can do just fine, drawing cards with life loss. Anyway, back to this card. Rare is the very least this can be. For today's standards, I could very easily see a card like this just be mythic by default. (2/3) Balance - I'm relatively sure you can bid more permanents than you actually have, just like you can bid more life than you actually have for Illicit Auction (it's in the card rulings). What happens if you win the bid with a higher bid than the number of permanents you have, notably including lands? I guess you'd do as much as you can, that is sacrificing all your permanents, with your opponents losing life equal to the number of permanents that you've actually sacrificed, not equal to the winning bid. I'm glad that the last three words here are "sacrificed this way" and not "equal to the winning bid" or something like that. Otherwise, you could just bid, let's say, a million permanents, and you would have sacrificed everything you had but your opponents would have lost a million life each, straight up losing the game unless they had some kind of instant speed infinite life combo. The way you did it is much more balanced. It's hard for me to say more, not having any kind of direct experience with similar cards, I admit. My best guess is that this is not a card for limited, but for constructed, possibly including older formats. I can't see this as a fun card in competitive tournaments, I think that where it shines is the kitchen table, and it also looks quite interesting in multiplayer, where you will have more players to bid against. Somebody starting a huge auction in a multiplayer casual game looks like it can be very fun. But again, as with many other things in life, and trust me, I know a lot about that, this is only theoretical reasoning. If you don't actually try, you won't really know what it feels like.
Creativity (3/3) Uniqueness - In modern MTG card design, this kind of effect is unheard of. The most recent of those three cards is from Kamigawa, 15 years ago. I myself have never played with them as I started playing in original Ravnica, the following year. To even newer players, this card will feel groundbreaking and highly memorable. I just have to give you full points here. Yes, it's something we've already seen, but we haven't seen anything similar for the last 15 years. Not days. Years! (3/3) Flavor - You will certainly reach the end of the game if the bid is high enough. Someone will have to sacrifice a lot of permanents, possibly including lands, and if the game isn't over because of the life loss from this card, it will be very soon anyway. So the name feels very appropriate for what this card does. MSE tells me a short flavor text could technically fit, but the card does look much better without it, so it's not a problem.
Polish (3/3) Quality - The three cards I mentioned at the beginning tell me that the wording is right. (2/2) Main Challenge - "End Game" and "the bidding ends". Good. (2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
Total: 21.5/25
End It NowW
Instant (R)
End the current phase. Cast End It Now only during a combat phase. (Player's mana pools empty. Attacking creatures are no longer attacking and blocking creatures are no longer blocking. Combat damage that has not yet been dealt is not dealt. It becomes the active player's main phase.) Is there no greater irony than peace at swordpoint? Design (2/3) Appeal - If anything, I can see Timmy desperately hating this card. He wants to attack with his creatures! This is a really strange card, and Johnny loves those. Spike also likes the strategic challenges this kind of card can give her. (3/3) Elegance - No problems here. The reminder text helps comprehension a lot. I would have deducted points in this area for it not being there, not for it being there. Yes, that pun is totally intended.
Development (3/3) Viability - Hard to judge here without precedent. The effect does make sense in white to me. I wouldn't want to see this at less than rare. I think it could have been mythic very easily if Subchallenge 2 hadn't been there, but I have no problems with this card being at regular rare either. (2/3) Balance - This just has to have the timing restriction to be able to only cost one mana. I wonder how different this card would be without the restriction but with a higher mana cost. I see this as a purely constructed card, you kinda have to build around it to properly use it (Johnny is still listening), and maybe even there just as a sideboard card. I don't see much difference in actual play value between this effect and Fog, and this isn't exactly the most exciting of comparisons. If casual players understand what this does, and I think they will if they read the reminder text, they should have no problems with this card. In multiplayer, this card gets much more interesting, as you can end a combat phase that you're not even involved in. Why would you do that? Politics. You might have established an alliance with the player that's being attacked, or you might want to do it now, something like: "I saved you, how about you saving me when I need it?" This is the part of multiplayer that both Maro and I do not like, but that doesn't mean we can ignore it. There are players who love multiplayer formats exactly because of that, and there is no right or wrong in personal preferences. Me not liking it just means that it's not for me.
Creativity (3/3) Uniqueness - We have "end the turn" cards, but no cards that end a specific phase. The closest we come to that is skipping a phase (Moment of Silence, Fatespinner), or stealing a phase in silver border (Clocknapper), but neither of those options lets you end the current phase, only skip a future one. I haven't been able to find any more similar precedent in Gatherer. (2.5/3) Flavor - I'm not sure you would have used the same card name if the Main Challenge hadn't asked for it, but I'm sure you would have used the same flavor text, which is just perfect for this card.
Polish (2/3) Quality - As I said, I haven't been able to find any real precedent, so it's hard to judge this card in this area. I think the wording is realistic enough, and I can easily see it on a printed card, so I'll say that it's good. You also clearly need reminder text to explain what "ending a combat phase" means, as it's a new concept, and that looks quite realistic too, and it looks to me that there's nothing you have left out of it. So I'll just deduct no points for that. I will for the grammar mistake in the reminder text ("Players' mana pools...", -0.5), and Savage Beating also says that the wording of the restriction is wrong: it should be "Cast End It Now only during combat" (-0.5), even though specifying that combat is a phase is nice for less experienced or more casual players that might not know the rules as well as an experienced player, a judge, or just a player (such as, say, me) that's a fan of the logical system that the CR define up to the point of spending days to fully read the CR just for fun and that could very probably just become a real judge if it were compatible with other things in his life... And obviously, Wizards removes the Rules Advisor test exactly while that specific player is finally considering actually taking it... But I digress. Just as usual. (2/2) Main Challenge - "End It Now" and "End the phase". Good. (2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
Total: 21.5/25
Molten End1RR
Instant (R)
Multikicker: Sacrifice a creature. (You may sacrifice any number of creatures in addition to any other costs as you cast this spell.)
Exile the top X+1 cards of your library, where X is the number of times Molten End was kicked. Until the end of your next turn, you may play those cards. The Quiet Furnace must be fed to be quiet. Design (3/3) Appeal - Timmy would like to use this in a burn deck, but he would very probably prefer to pay some other cost for the multikicker, even just more mana rather than having to sacrifice his own creatures. Johnny really likes that multikicker cost instead, it just lets him use this card as a sac outlet. Spike likes impulsive draw and I think she'd have no big problems with this particular variation. Being able to play the cards on her next turn is also a huge plus to her. (3/3) Elegance - Not too long and very easy to understand. I see no problems here.
Development (2.5/3) Viability - Impulsive draw is red, no problem. The "sacrifice a creature" cost might push this towards Rakdos, but it's still something that red can do by itself just fine. This is clearly fine at rare, but I actually wonder if it could be uncommon. (3/3) Balance - Comparing this to other impulsive draw cards, I think the costs are fine. I saw this card as you first submitted it, and the "plus one" wasn't there. I'm very glad you added it. If it weren't there and you chose not to use multikicker, you'd impulsively draw a grand total of zero cards! Now it's good. Now the card does something even if you don't kick it, and that's exactly how kicker and multikicker cards should work. Giving you the chance to play the cards on your next turn is a huge upside for red, and part of what makes Light Up the Stage so good. I also really like that if don't consider tokens, this card will never be card advantage. At most, it will be card parity: you get the first card for the base spell, then for each time you kick it you get one more card but have to give up one (the nontoken creature). As I said, tokens might allow this to turn into actual card advantage, but I love this auto-balancing aspect from a Mel point of view. Definitely playable in limited, especially if there is some archetype like Aristocrats in BR, and I could see this in Standard monored and BR decks rather easily. I see no problems in casual and multiplayer.
Creativity (2.5/3) Uniqueness - While searching Gatherer for Quality, I've discovered that there are no multikicker cards with non-mana multikicker costs. That's good in this area. Multikicker is from before when red got impulsive draw, so pairing those two elements is also technically new. Not giving full points here because both of those feel like very easy places to go to, but I'll say that this card combines old elements into something new. That's not perfect but still pretty good in this area. (2.5/3) Flavor - The only remark I have in this area is that the flavor text feels a little bland to me, but it does make a lot of sense with the mechanics. I have no problems with the name or the card concept.
Polish (1.5/3) Quality - After the word multikicker there should be an em dash in the place of the colon (I've only been able to find a kicker example with "sacrifice a creature", but multikicker is just templated in the same way: Primal Growth). The presence of a colon implies that is an activated ability, which it isn't, so -1 for functional mistake. If I check the reminder text of any card with multikicker (example: Comet Storm) and the aforementioned Primal Growth, and I make the sum of those I get "You may sacrifice a creature any number of times in addition to..." but that looks like it allows you to sacrifice the same creature repeatedly, which is not what this card actually does (luckily). I think the way you worded it here is much clearer and avoids the potential confusion, so I'll deduct no points for that. The "plus one" after X should be spelled out, like I've just written it (-0.5). (2/2) Main Challenge - "Molten End" and "until the end of your next turn". Good. (2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
MCC - Winner (6): Oct 2014, Apr Nov 2017, Jan 2018, Apr Jun 2019 || Host (15): Dec 2014, Apr Jul Aug Dec 2015, Mar Jul Aug Oct 2016, Feb Jul 2017, Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) || Judge (34): every month from Nov 2014 to Nov 2016 except Oct 2015, every month from Feb to Jul 2017 except Apr 2017, then Oct 2017, May Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) CCL - Winner (3): Jul 2016 (tied with Flatline), May 2017, Jul 2019 (last one here) || Host (5): Feb 2015, Mar Apr May Jun 2016 DCC - Winner (1): Mar 2015 (tied with Piar) || Host (3): May Oct 2015, Jan 2016
• The two public custom sets I've been part a part of the design team for: "Brotherhood of Ormos" - Blog post with all info - set thread - design skeleton / card list || "Extinctia: Homo Evanuit" - Blog post with all info - set thread - card list spreadsheet
• "The Lion's Lair", my article series about MTG and custom card design in particular. Latest article here. Here is the article index.Rather outdated by now, and based on the old MCC rubric, but I'm leaving this here for anybody that might be interested anyway.
• My only public attempt at being a writer: the story of my Leonin custom planeswalker Jeff Lionheart. (I have a very big one that I'm working on right now but that's private for now, and I don't know if I will ever actually publish it, and I also have ideas for multiple future ones, including one where I'm going to reprise Jeff.)
Design -
(1.5/3) Appeal: Txmmy prefers their card advantage to be less costly. Definitely Jxnny uses here including Aristocrats.dek. Spike would sometimes be willing to play something like this but is well aware of what would happen if this spell was countered (hint: a blowout in the wrong direction).
(2.5/3) Elegance: There's an "X+1" in the text (incorrectly - see below - but still). Definitely a smallish inelegant element in an otherwise understandable card.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: Sacrificing permanents and impulse draw are both red things and this card should very much be rare.
(2.5/3) Balance: Neither overpowered nor underpowered per se, but this card is very swingy. It being cast will decide games one way or the other, and that's a lot to ask out of a three-mana spell.
Creativity -
(1/3) Uniqueness: Very similar to the likes of Reprocess.
(2.5/3) Flavor: Name feels off - it seems like mass removal instead of sacrificing to impulse draw - and then what's the connection between multikicker and New Phyrexia?
Polish -
(2.5/3) Quality: "Exile the top X cards of your library, where X is 1 plus the number..."
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Done.
(2/2) Subchallenges: And done.
Total: 20.5/25
Design -
(2/3) Appeal: Txmmy and Jxnny both want to try this out but it's way too unpredictable for Spike.
(1.5/3) Elegance: A wordy card overall whose effect is a possibly fairly lengthy mini-game.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: Black and rare seem right - this card feels a lot like Choice of Damnations after all - but maybe being BR would have been even better? Still, fine as-is.
(3/3) Balance: Five mana is a prohibitive enough cost and an effect that requires enough permanents that this card won't make any games miserable in the early goings. Still, might not make you many friends at certain Commander tables.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: Feels like a combo of the aforementioned Choice of Damnations and Pain's Reward - both, however, wacky and unique cards.
(1.5/3) Flavor: Name's very generic and doesn't really describe what the spell is doing; no room for flavor text, however.
Design -
(2.5/3) Appeal: This is an all-rounder, with Txmmy possibly liking it the least but still wanting to see the looks on everyone's faces when they pull it out at a key moment.
(3/3) Elegance: Somehow very very complicated and very very elegant at the same time.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: Rare feels right - it's a unique effect that isn't quite big enough for mythic. White might be more controversial but I fully believe that it's justified in that color and there's precious little precedent; a couple of cards end turns but nothing ends phases.
(3/3) Balance: An extremely powerful card... under just the right circumstances. Otherwise, well, it's a combat skip and nothing special. Ultimately something that can turn games around if it's played very smartly.
Creativity -
(2.5/3) Uniqueness: Time Stop is the precedent - and Holy Day in a pretty narrow sense - but this is a pretty wild thing in white. Still, just feels totally in-color and a great pie expansion.
(3/3) Flavor: Absolutely perfect top to bottom.
Polish -
(2/3) Quality: Not a lot of precedent for this wording but it'd probably be "Cast this spell only during combat. End the phase." No "current" needed.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Good.
(2/2) Subchallenges: And done.
It wouldn't be MCC if it didn't go over schedule, wouldn't it? I apologize for spacing on this, gencon happened and I blanked out. Working on them now.
Appeal: 2/3 - Timmy is not happy sacrificing creatures. Johnny LOVES sacrificing creatures when this is what he gets for it, and Spike is going to be okay with the tradeoff, assuming his deck cooperates. Elegance: 3/3 - You read it, you get it. Everything flows here, and it's a great image.
Viability: 3/3 - Compares pretty favorably to its nearest point of comparison in Commune with Lava, this is 100% in red's pie, and Rare definitely feels right. I can't argue it should be mythic so I won't even try. Balance: 2.5/3 - Where Commune was basically restricted to Big Red commander decks and that's it, this has the potential to see play in 60 card formats. I can imagine something like dirty kitty (Skirk Prospector + Fecundity + Patriarch's Bidding) blowing this wide open. I don't think it'll be format shattering, but someone will find a way to make a big impact.
Uniqueness: 1/3 - It's very nearly a dead ringer for Commune, with the only difference being how you figure out X. A card that I personally love, but a card I can't help but weigh heavily against. Flavor: 2/3 - You sort of have room to put in flavor text, it compresses the rules text but not enough for me to mark down for. What I am marking down for is the confusion for how melting down things creates spontaneous ideas? Also the flavor text bugs me significantly, "to be quiet" just begs to be "to stay quiet" instead in my mind, to where I had to read it again to make sure that wasn't how it actually went.
Quality: 2/3 - Multikicker's reminder text should be "you may sacrifice any number of creatures as you cast this spell", the clause about othere costs doesn't appear. Also it should read "Exile X cards, where X is one plus the number of times Molten End was kicked" - see the Burst cycle for reference. Main Challenge: 2/2 - Main Challenge is met. Sub-Challenges: 1.5/2 - First subchallenge says you can't use "end of turn", you use "end of your next turn" - the clause is still there, I'm giving you half a point because it's technically true but obviously not an intended way around it.
Total: 19/25
Appeal: 1.5/3 - Timmy is confused. Johnny loves people misplaying into this. Spike understands it but angle shooting is a valid strat, so he'll try it once or twice. Elegance: 1/3 - There's a very good reason we haven't had an auction card printed in almost 15 years. This is an unfortunate case of where the effect is fairly simple in practice but the magic legalese needed to make it work is deafening.
Viability: 2.5/3 - This is for sure a black card, almost splitting the cost of Choice of Damnations - I do feel it would have to be mythic rare just for complexity reasons, you don't want this showing up every draft - rare is right for power. For that reason I won't penalize you extra for what should violate a sub-challenge. Balance: 0/3 - This card can't function as intended. In the case of the other auction cards you are forced to pay life, so you can bid more than you have if you like, you just lose the game before you can do anything with the auction you won. With permanents, there's no restriction on how high you can go because the game will only make you do as much as you can - you can't sacrifice more permanents than you control, but you can bid to do exactly that, and if two players know that the bidding will just...never stop.
Flavor: 2/3 - You don't have room for flavor text, but you desperately need to find some way to explain what's going on here. Uniqueness: 3/3 - Yeah, that's a pretty easy call.
Quality: 3/3 = No errors here! Main Challenge: 2/2 - Main Challenge met. Sub-Challenges: 2/2 - Both Sub-challenges met.
Total: 17/25
Appeal: 2/3 - Timmy doesn't like weird stuff like this. Johnny likes a fog that can also negate opposing combat tricks, which is the real reason Spike is looking at it. Elegance: 2/3 - Much like Icarii's card, the legalese needed to make this work ends up making a normally simple effect really pretty tough to grok. It's doable, but you need a lot of help.
Viability: 3/3 - White has enough "during combat" effects to make this viable, Rare is probably right, maybe mythic for complexity reasons but the case isn't as strong so I'll let it slide. Balance: 2/3 - Every application of this card is going to be so niche that you'll have to re-read how it interacts with things to figure then all out. It's not game-breaking but it'll either be very good or very dead, with little in between.
Uniqueness: 2.5/3 - It's a fog, and there's plenty of those, but it's a weird enough fog mechanically that I can only just barely classify it as such so it's only a minor penalty. Flavor: 3/3 - Bigger Stick Diplomacy is never not going to work in situations like this. Once you see how it works you'll really start to get a deeper insight into the roots of things.
Quality: 2/3 - Should be "cast End it Now only during combat" - see Curtain of Light and Angelic Favor. Should also specify that it becomes the POSTCOMBAT Main Phase, which is a term Wizards has used, most recently on Neheb, the Eternal. Main Challenge: 2/2 - Main Challenge is met. Sub-Challenge: 2/2 - Both Subchallenges met.
Top 16 - 2012 Indiana State Championships Currently Playing: GBStandard - Golgari Safari MidrangeBG RBWModern - Mardu PyromancerWBR RLegacy - Good Old Fashioned BurnR
Congratulations to Jimmy Groove for being the winner of the last MCC on this site! Thanks to all the players, judges, and other hosts that have made possible not just this month, but all these years of MCC here.
A chapter ends, but a new one begins. The MCC isn't over. I'm hosting August myself on MTGNexus. Join us there!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MCC - Winner (6): Oct 2014, Apr Nov 2017, Jan 2018, Apr Jun 2019 || Host (15): Dec 2014, Apr Jul Aug Dec 2015, Mar Jul Aug Oct 2016, Feb Jul 2017, Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) || Judge (34): every month from Nov 2014 to Nov 2016 except Oct 2015, every month from Feb to Jul 2017 except Apr 2017, then Oct 2017, May Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) CCL - Winner (3): Jul 2016 (tied with Flatline), May 2017, Jul 2019 (last one here) || Host (5): Feb 2015, Mar Apr May Jun 2016 DCC - Winner (1): Mar 2015 (tied with Piar) || Host (3): May Oct 2015, Jan 2016
• The two public custom sets I've been part a part of the design team for: "Brotherhood of Ormos" - Blog post with all info - set thread - design skeleton / card list || "Extinctia: Homo Evanuit" - Blog post with all info - set thread - card list spreadsheet
• "The Lion's Lair", my article series about MTG and custom card design in particular. Latest article here. Here is the article index.Rather outdated by now, and based on the old MCC rubric, but I'm leaving this here for anybody that might be interested anyway.
• My only public attempt at being a writer: the story of my Leonin custom planeswalker Jeff Lionheart. (I have a very big one that I'm working on right now but that's private for now, and I don't know if I will ever actually publish it, and I also have ideas for multiple future ones, including one where I'm going to reprise Jeff.)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
(This banner is my own elaboration on the art of the card Glorious End by Raymond Swanland.)
July MCC Round 3 (finals)
It's over
This is true for the MCC too. This is the last MCC on MTGSalvation, starting next month (August) the MCC will be on MTGNexus as well.
Multiple times in my life, in various situations, I've thought to myself "now it's over". Sometimes it actually was, other times it was not. Reading about this site's supposed closure was one of them. But this round really marks the end of the MCC on this site. This contest will have a new home starting in just a little more than a week. As far as this site is concerned, this is it. It's really over.
Let's all end up with a bang! And let me end with a quote:
"Everything has to end, you'll soon find we're out of time left to watch it all unwind." (It just wouldn't be one of my months without a Linkin Park reference...)
Main Challenge - Design an instant or sorcery card that contains the word "end" in its rules text AND in the card name. Yes, both. The instance of "end" in the rules text can't be just a repetition of the card name. You can repeat the card name in the card's rules text, but that does NOT count as the instance of "end" in the rules text. Please see clarifications.
EDIT 7/22 7 PM EDT: Please, note that the Main Challenge has been slightly modified to forbid the repetition of the card name in the rules text. That was never supposed to count in my mind. It was just an unintended loophole. In exchange, I've pushed both deadlines back one day to give more time for the contestants to come up with new designs that satisfy this additional rule. I am really sorry for this and I apologize to everyone.
Subchallenge 1 - None of the following phrases are contained in the card's rules text: "end of turn", "end step", "end of combat".
Subchallenge 2 - Your card is not mythic rare.
Main Challenge
• NEW: synonyms (like "cease") do NOT count, neither in card name or rules text.
• NEW: You can repeat the card name in the rules text, but it will NOT count as the instance of "end" in the rules text. If you do that, you will need to put an additional instance of "end" in the rules text that's different from the card name for it to count.
• This time, it has to be specifically the word "end" in both places. Any meaning of the word is allowed, as long as the spelling doesn't change. If a verb, it has to be in a conjugation that doesn't change the spelling of the word either.
For example, all of the following DO count as card names (just examples, I'm not implying they are good card names):
Wit's End (singular noun)
Glorious End (singular noun, and also contains "end" in its rules text)
End of the World (singular noun)
The End Justifies the Means (singular noun, different meaning but same spelling)
At the End of the Rope (singular noun, another slightly different meaning but still the same spelling)
Civilizations End (verb, present tense, plural third person)
Civilizations Can End (following a modal verb)
Civilizations Would End (conditional verb)
End This Game! (imperative verb)
This Needs to End (infinitive verb)
Some examples of things in rules text that DO count for the Main Challenge:
An effect lasting "until end of turn".
An effect lasting "until the end of your next turn". - This would also pass subchallenge 1 (see below).
An ability triggering "at the beginning of your end step".
An effect lasting "until end of combat".
An ability triggering "at end of combat".
"End the turn." (imperative verb, see Time Stop and Glorious End) - This would also pass subchallenge 1 (see below).
"You may pay (cost) to end this effect." (infinitive verb) - This would also pass subchallenge 1 (see below).
• The word "ends" as a plural noun or as the third person of the verb "to end" is allowed, but it's the only exception to the previous point. Any other declination, form, or conjugation does NOT count.
For example, all of the following DO count as card names (just examples, I'm not implying they are good card names):
The World Ends (verb, present tense, singular third person)
The Two Ends of the Rope (plural noun)
• Derived words like "ended", "ending", or "endgame" do NOT count.
• Other words containing the "E-N-D" character sequence that are not the word "end" itself also do NOT count.
• Essentially, your card has to meet all three of the following requirements to pass the Main Challenge:
- It has to be an instant or sorcery. If it's a split card, a flip card (those from Kamigawa) or a DFC (those from Innistrad), then both halves or sides must be instant or sorcery.
- It has to have the word "end" in its rules text. If it's a split card, a flip card, or a DFC, then having it on only one half or side is enough.
- It has to have the word "end" in its card name. If it's a split card, a flip card, or a DFC, then having it on only one half or side is enough.
If even just one of the three requirements isn't met, your card fails the Main Challenge, and it will thus be DQ'ed.
• The word "end" can be there in flavor text too, but that's not required. If it's there in flavor text, that does NOT count for the Main Challenge requirements.
• The word "end" can be repeated any number of times. Just make sure that it doesn't feel forced, especially if you want to abuse this point and just spam your card with "end"s. If a judge feels it is forced, you will certainly lose points in multiple areas of the rubric, though NOT in Main Challenge this time, as the Main Challenge specifically asks for that word to be there.
Subchallenge 1
• Only the literal quoted expressions are forbidden. Variations like "until the end of your next turn" are allowed (see examples above).
Subchallenge 2
• Regular rare is fine, as well as common and uncommon of course.
If you have any other question, feel free to ask in the discussion thread.
DEADLINES
Design deadline: Saturday, July 27th 23:59 EDT
Judging deadline: Wednesday, July 31st 23:59 EDT
(X/3) Appeal: Do the different player psychographics (Timmy/Johhny/Spike) have a use for the card?
(X/3) Elegance: Is the card easily understandable at a glance? Do all the flavor and mechanics combined as a whole make sense?
Development -
(X/3) Viability: 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?
(X/3) Balance: 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?
Creativity -
(X/3) Uniqueness: 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”?
(X/3) Flavor: 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?
Polish -
(X/3) Quality: Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
(X/2) *Main Challenge: Was the main challenge satisfied? Was it approached in a unique or interesting way? Does the card fit the intent of the challenge?
(X/2) Subchallenges: One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Total: X/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
JUDGES
bravelion83
void_nothing
Algernone25
PLAYERS
IcariiFA
Jimmy Groove
slimytrout
A very important note - I absolutely want this month to be over and declare a winner on July 31st (because of the advent of MTGNexus, see top of the post). This implies two things:
1. The contest will have only three rounds again this month. My current intention is to eliminate the round that traditionally gives the most trouble as a host: the versus round. My current plan is to have normal brackets in round 1 and round 2 (maybe with each player being judged by two different judges in round 2, but still using a traditional bracket structure), and have all judges judge all cards in the third and final round. There might be variations to this plan depending on the number of players and judges we get this month. The number of players that advance each round will also depend on those variables.
2. The judging deadlines will be heavily enforced. Having only three rounds will allow me to give one or two more days than I usually do in my months for the judges to do their work. If there are still any judgments missing the first time I check the site after the judging deadline has passed, I will immediately PM the judge(s) whose judgments are still missing giving them a 24-hour time extension, then if the extension has passed and the judgments are still missing, I will do them myself and move on. I don't want the contest to be delayed by judges not submitting their judgments on time, including in the final round. By signing up as a judge this month, you're accepting these terms.
A helpful tip for those formatting their cards, I wrote it more than two years ago but it's still totally valid.
Another note that has come up in the judge signup thread, putting it here too just so that everybody knows.
MCC - Winner (6): Oct 2014, Apr Nov 2017, Jan 2018, Apr Jun 2019 || Host (15): Dec 2014, Apr Jul Aug Dec 2015, Mar Jul Aug Oct 2016, Feb Jul 2017, Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) || Judge (34): every month from Nov 2014 to Nov 2016 except Oct 2015, every month from Feb to Jul 2017 except Apr 2017, then Oct 2017, May Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here)
CCL - Winner (3): Jul 2016 (tied with Flatline), May 2017, Jul 2019 (last one here) || Host (5): Feb 2015, Mar Apr May Jun 2016
DCC - Winner (1): Mar 2015 (tied with Piar) || Host (3): May Oct 2015, Jan 2016
• The two public custom sets I've been part a part of the design team for:
"Brotherhood of Ormos" - Blog post with all info - set thread - design skeleton / card list || "Extinctia: Homo Evanuit" - Blog post with all info - set thread - card list spreadsheet
• "The Lion's Lair", my article series about MTG and custom card design in particular. Latest article here. Here is the article index. Rather outdated by now, and based on the old MCC rubric, but I'm leaving this here for anybody that might be interested anyway.
• My only public attempt at being a writer: the story of my Leonin custom planeswalker Jeff Lionheart. (I have a very big one that I'm working on right now but that's private for now, and I don't know if I will ever actually publish it, and I also have ideas for multiple future ones, including one where I'm going to reprise Jeff.)
Instant (R)
Multikicker: Sacrifice a creature. (You may sacrifice any number of creatures in addition to any other costs as you cast this spell.)
Exile the top X+1 cards of your library, where X is the number of times Molten End was kicked. Until the end of your next turn, you may play those cards.
The Quiet Furnace must be fed to be quiet.
Sorcery (R)
Each player may bid permanents. You start the bidding with a bid of any number. In turn order, each player may top the high bid. The bidding ends if the high bid stands. The high bidder sacrifices permanents equal to the high bid and each other player loses life equal to the number of permanents sacrificed this way.
Instant (R)
End the current phase. Cast End It Now only during a combat phase. (Player's mana pools empty. Attacking creatures are no longer attacking and blocking creatures are no longer blocking. Combat damage that has not yet been dealt is not dealt. It becomes the active player's main phase.)
Is there no greater irony than peace at swordpoint?
Judging may begin right now. Every judge judges all three cards.
Judges, let's try our best to declare a winner within the end of the month. Thank you.
Judgments complete. All three cards within half a point. The other judgments will be decisive with scores so close from me.
Also, these will very probably be my last judgments on MTGSalvation. See you all on MTGNexus in a couple days.
Sorcery (R)
Each player may bid permanents. You start the bidding with a bid of any number. In turn order, each player may top the high bid. The bidding ends if the high bid stands. The high bidder sacrifices permanents equal to the high bid and each other player loses life equal to the number of permanents sacrificed this way.
Ok, I'll be honest: at first I didn't even know how to judge this card. Then I found the three similar existing cards on Gatherer: Illicit Auction, Mages' Contest, and Pain's Reward. I expect to reference these cards a lot of times in this judgment, so I'll just autocard them here so that it'll be easier to reference them. I've also checked the CR, and you know what I've discovered? The action of bidding isn't even defined in the CR! It technically doesn't even exist, but that's certainly not your fault. You've actually just discovered a bug in the CR! It doesn't happen everyday! Anyway, I'll try to do the best I can, just as usual. Let's go!
Design
(2/3) Appeal - Timmy just loves the idea of having an auction during a black border game, but doesn't like either of the options for how the bidding ends. Sacrificing permanents and losing life himself aren't things he likes. I'm left wondering how Johnny could use this card. Maybe as a mega-sac outlet? But how can he be sure that he won't end up losing life instead? I think this is just too risky for Spike. She wants to have control herself over what her cards do.
(2/3) Elegance - Luckily, the text explains itself what you're supposed to do, step by step. If you pass the initial stupor that this kind of card will inevitably cause you if you have never seen the three cards I mentioned at the beginning, you'll probably be fine. The text is still very long though.
Development
(2.5/3) Viability - This kind of reminds me of annihilator, and this is both good and bad at the same time. Good because it feels at home in black if it has to be on a colored card, bad because it's not exactly the most fun of abilities. Also, one of the three similar existing cards is black, so this kind of effect can and has been done in black. I'll be honest: I have big problems with those cards from a modern color pie point of view, but luckily that's not the case with your card. Gaining permanent control of a creature in monored (Illicit Auction)? Just no, thanks, red should only gain control of creatures temporarily. A monored counterspell (Mages' Contest)? Seriously? That's worse than Guttural Response, a known color pie break! At least, Pain's Reward is something monoblack can do just fine, drawing cards with life loss. Anyway, back to this card. Rare is the very least this can be. For today's standards, I could very easily see a card like this just be mythic by default.
(2/3) Balance - I'm relatively sure you can bid more permanents than you actually have, just like you can bid more life than you actually have for Illicit Auction (it's in the card rulings). What happens if you win the bid with a higher bid than the number of permanents you have, notably including lands? I guess you'd do as much as you can, that is sacrificing all your permanents, with your opponents losing life equal to the number of permanents that you've actually sacrificed, not equal to the winning bid. I'm glad that the last three words here are "sacrificed this way" and not "equal to the winning bid" or something like that. Otherwise, you could just bid, let's say, a million permanents, and you would have sacrificed everything you had but your opponents would have lost a million life each, straight up losing the game unless they had some kind of instant speed infinite life combo. The way you did it is much more balanced. It's hard for me to say more, not having any kind of direct experience with similar cards, I admit. My best guess is that this is not a card for limited, but for constructed, possibly including older formats. I can't see this as a fun card in competitive tournaments, I think that where it shines is the kitchen table, and it also looks quite interesting in multiplayer, where you will have more players to bid against. Somebody starting a huge auction in a multiplayer casual game looks like it can be very fun. But again, as with many other things in life, and trust me, I know a lot about that, this is only theoretical reasoning. If you don't actually try, you won't really know what it feels like.
Creativity
(3/3) Uniqueness - In modern MTG card design, this kind of effect is unheard of. The most recent of those three cards is from Kamigawa, 15 years ago. I myself have never played with them as I started playing in original Ravnica, the following year. To even newer players, this card will feel groundbreaking and highly memorable. I just have to give you full points here. Yes, it's something we've already seen, but we haven't seen anything similar for the last 15 years. Not days. Years!
(3/3) Flavor - You will certainly reach the end of the game if the bid is high enough. Someone will have to sacrifice a lot of permanents, possibly including lands, and if the game isn't over because of the life loss from this card, it will be very soon anyway. So the name feels very appropriate for what this card does. MSE tells me a short flavor text could technically fit, but the card does look much better without it, so it's not a problem.
Polish
(3/3) Quality - The three cards I mentioned at the beginning tell me that the wording is right.
(2/2) Main Challenge - "End Game" and "the bidding ends". Good.
(2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
Total: 21.5/25
Instant (R)
End the current phase. Cast End It Now only during a combat phase. (Player's mana pools empty. Attacking creatures are no longer attacking and blocking creatures are no longer blocking. Combat damage that has not yet been dealt is not dealt. It becomes the active player's main phase.)
Is there no greater irony than peace at swordpoint?
Design
(2/3) Appeal - If anything, I can see Timmy desperately hating this card. He wants to attack with his creatures! This is a really strange card, and Johnny loves those. Spike also likes the strategic challenges this kind of card can give her.
(3/3) Elegance - No problems here. The reminder text helps comprehension a lot. I would have deducted points in this area for it not being there, not for it being there. Yes, that pun is totally intended.
Development
(3/3) Viability - Hard to judge here without precedent. The effect does make sense in white to me. I wouldn't want to see this at less than rare. I think it could have been mythic very easily if Subchallenge 2 hadn't been there, but I have no problems with this card being at regular rare either.
(2/3) Balance - This just has to have the timing restriction to be able to only cost one mana. I wonder how different this card would be without the restriction but with a higher mana cost. I see this as a purely constructed card, you kinda have to build around it to properly use it (Johnny is still listening), and maybe even there just as a sideboard card. I don't see much difference in actual play value between this effect and Fog, and this isn't exactly the most exciting of comparisons. If casual players understand what this does, and I think they will if they read the reminder text, they should have no problems with this card. In multiplayer, this card gets much more interesting, as you can end a combat phase that you're not even involved in. Why would you do that? Politics. You might have established an alliance with the player that's being attacked, or you might want to do it now, something like: "I saved you, how about you saving me when I need it?" This is the part of multiplayer that both Maro and I do not like, but that doesn't mean we can ignore it. There are players who love multiplayer formats exactly because of that, and there is no right or wrong in personal preferences. Me not liking it just means that it's not for me.
Creativity
(3/3) Uniqueness - We have "end the turn" cards, but no cards that end a specific phase. The closest we come to that is skipping a phase (Moment of Silence, Fatespinner), or stealing a phase in silver border (Clocknapper), but neither of those options lets you end the current phase, only skip a future one. I haven't been able to find any more similar precedent in Gatherer.
(2.5/3) Flavor - I'm not sure you would have used the same card name if the Main Challenge hadn't asked for it, but I'm sure you would have used the same flavor text, which is just perfect for this card.
Polish
(2/3) Quality - As I said, I haven't been able to find any real precedent, so it's hard to judge this card in this area. I think the wording is realistic enough, and I can easily see it on a printed card, so I'll say that it's good. You also clearly need reminder text to explain what "ending a combat phase" means, as it's a new concept, and that looks quite realistic too, and it looks to me that there's nothing you have left out of it. So I'll just deduct no points for that. I will for the grammar mistake in the reminder text ("Players' mana pools...", -0.5), and Savage Beating also says that the wording of the restriction is wrong: it should be "Cast End It Now only during combat" (-0.5), even though specifying that combat is a phase is nice for less experienced or more casual players that might not know the rules as well as an experienced player, a judge, or just a player (such as, say, me) that's a fan of the logical system that the CR define up to the point of spending days to fully read the CR just for fun and that could very probably just become a real judge if it were compatible with other things in his life... And obviously, Wizards removes the Rules Advisor test exactly while that specific player is finally considering actually taking it... But I digress. Just as usual.
(2/2) Main Challenge - "End It Now" and "End the phase". Good.
(2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
Total: 21.5/25
Instant (R)
Multikicker: Sacrifice a creature. (You may sacrifice any number of creatures in addition to any other costs as you cast this spell.)
Exile the top X+1 cards of your library, where X is the number of times Molten End was kicked. Until the end of your next turn, you may play those cards.
The Quiet Furnace must be fed to be quiet.
Design
(3/3) Appeal - Timmy would like to use this in a burn deck, but he would very probably prefer to pay some other cost for the multikicker, even just more mana rather than having to sacrifice his own creatures. Johnny really likes that multikicker cost instead, it just lets him use this card as a sac outlet. Spike likes impulsive draw and I think she'd have no big problems with this particular variation. Being able to play the cards on her next turn is also a huge plus to her.
(3/3) Elegance - Not too long and very easy to understand. I see no problems here.
Development
(2.5/3) Viability - Impulsive draw is red, no problem. The "sacrifice a creature" cost might push this towards Rakdos, but it's still something that red can do by itself just fine. This is clearly fine at rare, but I actually wonder if it could be uncommon.
(3/3) Balance - Comparing this to other impulsive draw cards, I think the costs are fine. I saw this card as you first submitted it, and the "plus one" wasn't there. I'm very glad you added it. If it weren't there and you chose not to use multikicker, you'd impulsively draw a grand total of zero cards! Now it's good. Now the card does something even if you don't kick it, and that's exactly how kicker and multikicker cards should work. Giving you the chance to play the cards on your next turn is a huge upside for red, and part of what makes Light Up the Stage so good. I also really like that if don't consider tokens, this card will never be card advantage. At most, it will be card parity: you get the first card for the base spell, then for each time you kick it you get one more card but have to give up one (the nontoken creature). As I said, tokens might allow this to turn into actual card advantage, but I love this auto-balancing aspect from a Mel point of view. Definitely playable in limited, especially if there is some archetype like Aristocrats in BR, and I could see this in Standard monored and BR decks rather easily. I see no problems in casual and multiplayer.
Creativity
(2.5/3) Uniqueness - While searching Gatherer for Quality, I've discovered that there are no multikicker cards with non-mana multikicker costs. That's good in this area. Multikicker is from before when red got impulsive draw, so pairing those two elements is also technically new. Not giving full points here because both of those feel like very easy places to go to, but I'll say that this card combines old elements into something new. That's not perfect but still pretty good in this area.
(2.5/3) Flavor - The only remark I have in this area is that the flavor text feels a little bland to me, but it does make a lot of sense with the mechanics. I have no problems with the name or the card concept.
Polish
(1.5/3) Quality - After the word multikicker there should be an em dash in the place of the colon (I've only been able to find a kicker example with "sacrifice a creature", but multikicker is just templated in the same way: Primal Growth). The presence of a colon implies that is an activated ability, which it isn't, so -1 for functional mistake. If I check the reminder text of any card with multikicker (example: Comet Storm) and the aforementioned Primal Growth, and I make the sum of those I get "You may sacrifice a creature any number of times in addition to..." but that looks like it allows you to sacrifice the same creature repeatedly, which is not what this card actually does (luckily). I think the way you worded it here is much clearer and avoids the potential confusion, so I'll deduct no points for that. The "plus one" after X should be spelled out, like I've just written it (-0.5).
(2/2) Main Challenge - "Molten End" and "until the end of your next turn". Good.
(2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
Total: 22/25
slimytrout: 22
IcariiFA: 21.5
Jimmy Groove: 21.5
MCC - Winner (6): Oct 2014, Apr Nov 2017, Jan 2018, Apr Jun 2019 || Host (15): Dec 2014, Apr Jul Aug Dec 2015, Mar Jul Aug Oct 2016, Feb Jul 2017, Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) || Judge (34): every month from Nov 2014 to Nov 2016 except Oct 2015, every month from Feb to Jul 2017 except Apr 2017, then Oct 2017, May Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here)
CCL - Winner (3): Jul 2016 (tied with Flatline), May 2017, Jul 2019 (last one here) || Host (5): Feb 2015, Mar Apr May Jun 2016
DCC - Winner (1): Mar 2015 (tied with Piar) || Host (3): May Oct 2015, Jan 2016
• The two public custom sets I've been part a part of the design team for:
"Brotherhood of Ormos" - Blog post with all info - set thread - design skeleton / card list || "Extinctia: Homo Evanuit" - Blog post with all info - set thread - card list spreadsheet
• "The Lion's Lair", my article series about MTG and custom card design in particular. Latest article here. Here is the article index. Rather outdated by now, and based on the old MCC rubric, but I'm leaving this here for anybody that might be interested anyway.
• My only public attempt at being a writer: the story of my Leonin custom planeswalker Jeff Lionheart. (I have a very big one that I'm working on right now but that's private for now, and I don't know if I will ever actually publish it, and I also have ideas for multiple future ones, including one where I'm going to reprise Jeff.)
(1.5/3) Appeal: Txmmy prefers their card advantage to be less costly. Definitely Jxnny uses here including Aristocrats.dek. Spike would sometimes be willing to play something like this but is well aware of what would happen if this spell was countered (hint: a blowout in the wrong direction).
(2.5/3) Elegance: There's an "X+1" in the text (incorrectly - see below - but still). Definitely a smallish inelegant element in an otherwise understandable card.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: Sacrificing permanents and impulse draw are both red things and this card should very much be rare.
(2.5/3) Balance: Neither overpowered nor underpowered per se, but this card is very swingy. It being cast will decide games one way or the other, and that's a lot to ask out of a three-mana spell.
Creativity -
(1/3) Uniqueness: Very similar to the likes of Reprocess.
(2.5/3) Flavor: Name feels off - it seems like mass removal instead of sacrificing to impulse draw - and then what's the connection between multikicker and New Phyrexia?
Polish -
(2.5/3) Quality: "Exile the top X cards of your library, where X is 1 plus the number..."
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Done.
(2/2) Subchallenges: And done.
Total: 20.5/25
(2/3) Appeal: Txmmy and Jxnny both want to try this out but it's way too unpredictable for Spike.
(1.5/3) Elegance: A wordy card overall whose effect is a possibly fairly lengthy mini-game.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: Black and rare seem right - this card feels a lot like Choice of Damnations after all - but maybe being BR would have been even better? Still, fine as-is.
(3/3) Balance: Five mana is a prohibitive enough cost and an effect that requires enough permanents that this card won't make any games miserable in the early goings. Still, might not make you many friends at certain Commander tables.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: Feels like a combo of the aforementioned Choice of Damnations and Pain's Reward - both, however, wacky and unique cards.
(1.5/3) Flavor: Name's very generic and doesn't really describe what the spell is doing; no room for flavor text, however.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Fine.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Done.
(2/2) Subchallenges: And done.
Total: 20/25
(2.5/3) Appeal: This is an all-rounder, with Txmmy possibly liking it the least but still wanting to see the looks on everyone's faces when they pull it out at a key moment.
(3/3) Elegance: Somehow very very complicated and very very elegant at the same time.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: Rare feels right - it's a unique effect that isn't quite big enough for mythic. White might be more controversial but I fully believe that it's justified in that color and there's precious little precedent; a couple of cards end turns but nothing ends phases.
(3/3) Balance: An extremely powerful card... under just the right circumstances. Otherwise, well, it's a combat skip and nothing special. Ultimately something that can turn games around if it's played very smartly.
Creativity -
(2.5/3) Uniqueness: Time Stop is the precedent - and Holy Day in a pretty narrow sense - but this is a pretty wild thing in white. Still, just feels totally in-color and a great pie expansion.
(3/3) Flavor: Absolutely perfect top to bottom.
Polish -
(2/3) Quality: Not a lot of precedent for this wording but it'd probably be "Cast this spell only during combat. End the phase." No "current" needed.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Good.
(2/2) Subchallenges: And done.
Total: 23/25
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
Elegance: 3/3 - You read it, you get it. Everything flows here, and it's a great image.
Viability: 3/3 - Compares pretty favorably to its nearest point of comparison in Commune with Lava, this is 100% in red's pie, and Rare definitely feels right. I can't argue it should be mythic so I won't even try.
Balance: 2.5/3 - Where Commune was basically restricted to Big Red commander decks and that's it, this has the potential to see play in 60 card formats. I can imagine something like dirty kitty (Skirk Prospector + Fecundity + Patriarch's Bidding) blowing this wide open. I don't think it'll be format shattering, but someone will find a way to make a big impact.
Uniqueness: 1/3 - It's very nearly a dead ringer for Commune, with the only difference being how you figure out X. A card that I personally love, but a card I can't help but weigh heavily against.
Flavor: 2/3 - You sort of have room to put in flavor text, it compresses the rules text but not enough for me to mark down for. What I am marking down for is the confusion for how melting down things creates spontaneous ideas? Also the flavor text bugs me significantly, "to be quiet" just begs to be "to stay quiet" instead in my mind, to where I had to read it again to make sure that wasn't how it actually went.
Quality: 2/3 - Multikicker's reminder text should be "you may sacrifice any number of creatures as you cast this spell", the clause about othere costs doesn't appear. Also it should read "Exile X cards, where X is one plus the number of times Molten End was kicked" - see the Burst cycle for reference.
Main Challenge: 2/2 - Main Challenge is met.
Sub-Challenges: 1.5/2 - First subchallenge says you can't use "end of turn", you use "end of your next turn" - the clause is still there, I'm giving you half a point because it's technically true but obviously not an intended way around it.
Total: 19/25
Appeal: 1.5/3 - Timmy is confused. Johnny loves people misplaying into this. Spike understands it but angle shooting is a valid strat, so he'll try it once or twice.
Elegance: 1/3 - There's a very good reason we haven't had an auction card printed in almost 15 years. This is an unfortunate case of where the effect is fairly simple in practice but the magic legalese needed to make it work is deafening.
Viability: 2.5/3 - This is for sure a black card, almost splitting the cost of Choice of Damnations - I do feel it would have to be mythic rare just for complexity reasons, you don't want this showing up every draft - rare is right for power. For that reason I won't penalize you extra for what should violate a sub-challenge.
Balance: 0/3 - This card can't function as intended. In the case of the other auction cards you are forced to pay life, so you can bid more than you have if you like, you just lose the game before you can do anything with the auction you won. With permanents, there's no restriction on how high you can go because the game will only make you do as much as you can - you can't sacrifice more permanents than you control, but you can bid to do exactly that, and if two players know that the bidding will just...never stop.
Flavor: 2/3 - You don't have room for flavor text, but you desperately need to find some way to explain what's going on here.
Uniqueness: 3/3 - Yeah, that's a pretty easy call.
Quality: 3/3 = No errors here!
Main Challenge: 2/2 - Main Challenge met.
Sub-Challenges: 2/2 - Both Sub-challenges met.
Total: 17/25
Elegance: 2/3 - Much like Icarii's card, the legalese needed to make this work ends up making a normally simple effect really pretty tough to grok. It's doable, but you need a lot of help.
Viability: 3/3 - White has enough "during combat" effects to make this viable, Rare is probably right, maybe mythic for complexity reasons but the case isn't as strong so I'll let it slide.
Balance: 2/3 - Every application of this card is going to be so niche that you'll have to re-read how it interacts with things to figure then all out. It's not game-breaking but it'll either be very good or very dead, with little in between.
Uniqueness: 2.5/3 - It's a fog, and there's plenty of those, but it's a weird enough fog mechanically that I can only just barely classify it as such so it's only a minor penalty.
Flavor: 3/3 - Bigger Stick Diplomacy is never not going to work in situations like this. Once you see how it works you'll really start to get a deeper insight into the roots of things.
Quality: 2/3 - Should be "cast End it Now only during combat" - see Curtain of Light and Angelic Favor. Should also specify that it becomes the POSTCOMBAT Main Phase, which is a term Wizards has used, most recently on Neheb, the Eternal.
Main Challenge: 2/2 - Main Challenge is met.
Sub-Challenge: 2/2 - Both Subchallenges met.
Total: 20.5/25
IcariiFA - 17/25
slimytrout - 19/25
JimmyGroove - 20.5/25
Currently Playing:
GBStandard - Golgari Safari MidrangeBG
RBWModern - Mardu PyromancerWBR
RLegacy - Good Old Fashioned BurnR
Clan Contest 3 Mafia - Mafia Co-MVP
Jimmy Groove: 20.5 + 21.5 + 23 = 65
slimytrout: 19 + 22 + 20.5 = 61.5
IcariiFA: 17 + 21.5 + 20 = 58.5
Congratulations to Jimmy Groove for being the winner of the last MCC on this site! Thanks to all the players, judges, and other hosts that have made possible not just this month, but all these years of MCC here.
A chapter ends, but a new one begins. The MCC isn't over. I'm hosting August myself on MTGNexus. Join us there!
MCC - Winner (6): Oct 2014, Apr Nov 2017, Jan 2018, Apr Jun 2019 || Host (15): Dec 2014, Apr Jul Aug Dec 2015, Mar Jul Aug Oct 2016, Feb Jul 2017, Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) || Judge (34): every month from Nov 2014 to Nov 2016 except Oct 2015, every month from Feb to Jul 2017 except Apr 2017, then Oct 2017, May Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here)
CCL - Winner (3): Jul 2016 (tied with Flatline), May 2017, Jul 2019 (last one here) || Host (5): Feb 2015, Mar Apr May Jun 2016
DCC - Winner (1): Mar 2015 (tied with Piar) || Host (3): May Oct 2015, Jan 2016
• The two public custom sets I've been part a part of the design team for:
"Brotherhood of Ormos" - Blog post with all info - set thread - design skeleton / card list || "Extinctia: Homo Evanuit" - Blog post with all info - set thread - card list spreadsheet
• "The Lion's Lair", my article series about MTG and custom card design in particular. Latest article here. Here is the article index. Rather outdated by now, and based on the old MCC rubric, but I'm leaving this here for anybody that might be interested anyway.
• My only public attempt at being a writer: the story of my Leonin custom planeswalker Jeff Lionheart. (I have a very big one that I'm working on right now but that's private for now, and I don't know if I will ever actually publish it, and I also have ideas for multiple future ones, including one where I'm going to reprise Jeff.)