Note that (like Anthony Alongi proposes for casual tournaments), the whole deck has to be legal in some DCI-approved format. So it has to be either a Type 2 deck (if you want 4 MTG: Minds' Desire and 4 MTG: Chrome Mox), or Type 1 (in which case you only get 1 of each), or whatever.
AlexChurchill proposes, for those for whom it's feasible, that such decks be presented in the form of 75 cards in card sleeves; each sleeve should also have a small scrap of paper with a number from 1-75 inserted on it (in front of the card). This allows sorting, verification of matching criteria, avoiding duplication, and so on. I have ~200 spare card sleeves available for those who don't have any themselves.
Card descriptions to be added may be specific or general. They should include cards which most GamesEvening regulars will be able to provide - so try not to require Banding, say, or other old abilities, since we have at least a couple of players who've started playing in the past 2 years. Providing alternative choices is acceptable and a good way round this - see the [sample list]. Providing a list which won't fit most NetDecks? isn't a bad thing.
A coloured card with a coloured mana symbol in its rules text which doesn't appear in its mana cost
An artifact with a coloured mana symbol in its rules text (where "coloured mana symbol" means "symbol of coloured mana" rather than "mana symbol which is coloured" - the intention isn't to rule out Mirrodin cards)
A card which mentions Banding or Imprint
A non-creature card which mentions a Mirari-storyline character in its flavour text or name
A card with artwork by Donato Giancola
A creature card which is not a member of any of the major Onslaught-block tribes (Soldier, Cleric, Elf, Beast, Goblin, Zombie, Wizard, Bird, Illusion, Sliver and Dragon)
A creature card which is one of the major Onslaught-block tribes
A card with Madness or creature type Nightmare
A cantrip permanent ("when this comes into play/leaves play, draw a card" or similar) How similar is similar? MTG: Moriok Scavenger? MTG: Wirewood Herald? MTG: Fierce Empath? Hmm... I wouldn't normally count them as cantrips by the strictest definition of cantrip, but would be a more woolly one. For the purposes of this format... I would probably allow it. Although others are free to disagree. --AlexChurchill
A cantrip non-permanent (sorcery or instant with "draw a card" as part of the rules text)
A card not of type Instant which may be played any time you could play an instant Not of type instant by current Oracle wording, or by the text on the card? Well, I'd intended Oracle wording, but hey! Let's allow old Interrupts and Mana Sources too :)
A card with a leaves-play trigger ("When ~something~ leaves play/is put into a graveyard from play") other than "draw a card"
A card with a name containing each vowel at least once.
A card with a sword clearly visible in the artwork
A card with fire clearly visible in the artwork
A card whose flavour text consists of a quote plus attribution. Bonus points if attributed to Jaya Ballard, Task Mage.
A card with Buyback or Flashback
A creature, enchantment, instant or sorcery which can add mana to your mana pool
A multicoloured card
A multicoloured card, but not from Invasion block
A card which is most effective with a large graveyard (see discussion below), but not from Odyssey block
A card with a tribal mechanic (ie naming a specific creature type or the words "creature type" in the rules text), but not from Onslaught block The specification as given matches e.g. MTG: Nuisance Engine. Is token generation supposed to be included?
An artifact, but not from Mirrodin block
A creature of ConvertedManaCost? >=3, requiring precisely one type of mana (so WWW or RRRR or {7} is allowable. 2W is not)
A card which can grant a keyword mechanic (flying, cumulative upkeep, or whatever) to another card or cards
A card which modifies the colour or cost to play of other cards due to its own rules text. (As opposed to the "other card" having Affinity or similar)
A card which modifies a different creature's power or toughness
A (creature enchantment or Equipment) which doesn't modify power or toughness
A nonred card which can deal (noncombat) damage
A creature with 0 printed power or toughness
A card which mentions a land type in its rules text. Note that Swamp, Forest, etc are land types. But MTG: Dream Thrush doesn't work.
A card which mentions a card other than itself by name (not type) in its rules text, or a nonbasic land with a nonmana activated ability
A card with a name of the form [noun], (the) [title], or a card which is referred to by a name in that style in its flavour text.
A card whose name contains either a precious stone or a metal
A card whose name is precisely two words, differing in length by precisely 2 letters
A Legend, or Legendary permanent
A non-permanent which creates tokens
A card with Storm; or a card with an alternate casting cost
A creature of a creature type, or precise combination of creature types, with which 5 or fewer different cards have ever been printed
A card containing a form of the word "regenerate", or a card requiring a coin flip
A local enchantment
A noncreature card with a subtype printed as "<Type> -- <Subtype>"
A card which has been restricted or banned in any format Discussion moved below Do I conclude that there are still strong objections to this entry? If so, I suggest one such objector delete this entry, and perhaps move the discussion below. --AC I was the principal objector; I don't suppose I can complain too loudly if the entire deck is legal in some format; this doesn't mean I like the entry, but I guess I can live with it. --SF I was the OP. I'm happy fot this to go away if it causes objections, but it was intended simply as another interesting and searchable criterion. I never saw it as problematic, but the restriction to a DCI approved format seems reasonable. -- TI NB: Banned/restricted is different from 'not permitted' - so the Highlander trick doesn't work. -- TI
A non-blue card-drawer (a non-cantrip containing the words 'draw a card' or 'draw N cards'). Why non-cantrip? Because of #9 and #10, and because cantrips don't normally count as card drawing. Hmm. This is a bit problematic... Cycling and cycling-from-table ought to be excluded if cantrips are, but that doesn't leave very many. I'm inclined to remove the nonblue restriction and reword this as "A card which could allow you to draw more than one card". They exist in WUBRGAL. What do people think? --AC
A card the number of letters in whose name is an integer multiple of its converted mana cost. That is, any card with CMC 1, or a card with CMC 2 and an even number of letters in the name, etc
A card whose rules text contains either the symbol "+", or "X" other than inside a word.
A card containing the numeral 3 printed on it, somewhere other than in the collector number or copyright year.
A sorcery or instant depicting a creature appearing somewhere else in your deck. See discussion below
A sorcery or instant in which nothing appears to be happening. Presumably in the art?
A card depicting one or more bones, that isn't black.
A card whose rules text (not flavour text) contains at least 3 of the five high-scoring Scrabble letters: Z, Q, J, X, K. (Not necessarily different ones: so J, J, X, J is OK.) (There are lots of options. This search seems to incl [525] candidates of which [51] Standard-legal).
A card which references a storyline planeswalker; other than merely by being from a block named after one.
A card that could not be included under any of the other rules.
A card with art by John Avon other than a basic land
A card whose name can be spelt using (a subset of) the first letters of the cards chosen for numbers 1-54. (I feel like being mildly evil. The constraint is probably easy enough, but the wibbling of the mind may be a little off-putting)
56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61: Six lands with art all different to each other and to cards 62-66 62. A basic land with art by John Avon 63. A land with birds in the artwork 64. A land with trees in the artwork 65. A land with buildings in the artwork 66. A land with a sun or moon in the artwork 67-75. Any 9 basic lands. no reason why this entry has to stay like this, just remember people will need to be able to play 20-24 lands, mostly basic
Quibbling and discussion
Is allowed and encouraged. Currently there's only one which AlexChurchill thinks will be a significant challenge to find cards which match. Building a coherent deck out of the motley collection produced, naturally, is of course the main challenge and appeal of the format.
Angoel notices that there's a nice paradox in the current ruleset, in that as you choose a card for slot 53, you may simultaniously invalidate it as it becomes legal for slot 55.
48. A sorcery or instant depicting a creature appearing somewhere else in your deck.
Clarification: does it have to be the specific creature, or is creature type good enough?
I'd have thought species, rather than just type. Shock and 'tog, for example.
But presumably not /just/ species, particularly in the cases of eg "Elf" or "Human". How about recognisably from the same tribe? I've got two examples in mind: one is very clearly a very similar creature to one of my creature cards; the other is clearly from the same human culture as one of my creatures, but plays a slightly different role in that culture whilst looking fairly similar. Clarifications or opinions welcome and appreciated. --AC
More daringly, does it have to show a creature I have in my deck as a creature card? Several of my non-creatures have creatures in the art, which - I contend - thus "appear" in my deck. --CH, who will otherwise have difficulty with this slot.
(Peter)
Where can one get a list of cards with artwork by Donato Giancola (or, for that matter, any other artist)?
The following are cards which PeterTaylor doesn't have in his collection.
A card with Buyback or Flashback
26. A card which modifies the colour or cost to play of other cards due to its own rules text.
How specific are we being here? Is this essentially limited to Warchiefs and similar as modifiers of "cost to play" or are cards like MTG: Soul Foundry which introduce an alternative method to play the card regarded as a way of modifying the cost to play?
Your intention was perfectly clear before. I just didn't like it and idly attempted to push it towards allowing cards like the Foundry. I dislike having to rely on summoning stuff. Especially in this format. --SF
It's a little counterintuitive, but I guess so. It's no different to MTG: Aluren or MTG: Mind's Desire: it sets up a conditional modified (alternate) cost to play another card. People are allowed to be pedantic with these definitions; I'm expecting nothing less ;) --AC
AlexChurchill thinks the following entries might need modifying/removing because they're too narrow or too color-specific:
A card which benefits from a large graveyard, but not from Odyssey block
almost all such are black, and most are quite hard to get hold of? Unless you can count MTG: Reclaim, MTG: Recoup, and suchlike... maybe even MTG: Feldon's Cane if we rephrase it as "A cards which is most effective with a large graveyard"... maybe not a problem after all --AC
StuartFraser agrees - unless we take this interpretation, I'm pretty much limited to something like my MTG: Revenant, and that's just pure luck that I have one...
With nobody having defended it, I've rephrased it as such. Shout here if you think it deserves to keep its old wording. --AC
Hmm....does this include "anything with Threshold"? Or can't I use that dodge? --SF
If you can find any cards with Threshold that fit the other criterion of not being from Odysseyblock, then they would certainly qualify... --AC
A card which has been restricted or banned in any format Please, no! There's a reason that cards get put on the B&R list, you know... The rules stated on the original site suggest running it Type 1 - in which case you can have precisely one copy of any restricted card that fits in other categories... I did say any format... I'm including non-sanctioned formats here, people. Is MTG: Engineered Plague going to do you that much harm? (Banned from that tribal format Wizards staff played in last year...) or whatever. For that matter, most banned cards are banned only due to their being too good in very specific combo decks. MTG: Mind's Desire is fine otherwise... (And as for why, I don't have any specific card in mind - hell, I positively can't think of anything to fill that slot, right now - I just thought it would be an interesting exercise in finding odd (but not broken, in this context) cards. -- TI Given that it is not terribly hard to find tutors which fit several of the above descriptions, I am strongly opposed to allowing some of the horrendously powerful cards on the T1 & Extended banned lists a way in that doesn't require some ingenuity. It isn't particulalry hard to build a combo deck using this list. Especially not now. If you're including non-sanctioned formats, then can I say "Highlander" and pick a second card of anything? Moreover, I don't care what formats you are including with the banned list, you aren't excluding Type 1 and Extended. Perhaps we could say like Anthony Alongi proposes, the whole deck has to be legal in some DCI-approved format. So it has to be either a Type 2 deck (if you want 4 MTG: Minds' Desire and 4 MTG: Chrome Mox), or Type 1 (in which case you only get 1 of each), or whatever?
PeterTaylor withdraws his objection after looking at the list of [cards which have been banned]. 17.5% of all cards? Are the DCI insane? I have 12 to choose from, including such easily obtainable cards as MTG: Icy Manipulator. And there I was thinking cards meeting this criterion would be hard to get hold of... One detail, though: what about cards equivalent to a banned card? For example MTG: Bear Cub is banned for being Portal-only, but it's otherwise identical to MTG: Grizzly Bears.
Some of those are 'banned' for not being in the format, not for any other reason. The Icy Manipulator, by virtue of having been restricted once, is valid, though. -- TI
53. With the way that the list currently stands, I think this means a monocolour --PT global enchantment. --Angoel
Angoel notes that the changes in 48 and 49 have added instants and sorceries back onto the list.
And even then you'd have to be very careful... I dislike this one very much. --CH
You can also have non-Mirrodin artifacts without coloured mana symbols in their rules text, I think. But this is still a very silly rule; I dislike it.
My point was, the card would also have to: Not mention Banding, Imprint, or a Mirari-storyline character, not be drawn by Donato Giancola, not be a cantrip, not be an instant-speed non-instant, not have a leaves-play trigger, not contain all five vowels, not have a sword or fire in the artwork, not have a flavour text which is a quote, not be able to add mana, not like your graveyard or tribes, not grant a keyword, not alter playing costs, not modify P/T, not be able to deal damage, not mention a land type, not mention any other card, not be called "noun, the title", not mention a precious stone or metal, not have a name with x and x+2 letters in its two words, not be legendary, not have an alternate casting cost, not mention regeneration, not require a coinflip, not have a subtype, not be restriced or banned, not draw cards if it isn't blue, not have a name with nc letters in it, where c is the CMC, not have + or X in its rules text, not have 3 on it, not depict bones if it isn't black, contain at most 2 KXJQZ's, not mention a planeswalker, not have art by John Avon if it isn't a non-basic land, not be acrostic'ed by the first 54 cards, AND not have birds, trees, buildings, sun or moon, or be basic if its a land. I seriously doubt such a card exists. Hell, if anyone can find one, I'd allow them to bring it as a 76th card just for respect points... --CH
I've found one. Provided I don't acrostic it. --SF
Hmm, as have I. Probably won't run it. And acrosticking is always the unknown quantity. I still vote for this to be removed. --CH
qqzm can see two cards (one blue and one red) that fit this rule.
AC looking thru his folder of rares + Mirrodin uncommons found one artifact plus one card in each of my colours that I believe fitted. I need to stare more at the art for the instant to convince myself that something's happening (so it doesn't hit 49), but I think it's OK. (Otherwise it can fill my currently-blank 49 slot!) It turns out 32, 64 and 65 between them kill pretty much all nonbasic lands from hitting 53 :-o But I suspect things like MTG: Collapsing Borders or MTG: Rampant Growth would also work. --AC
Owch, yes, I suppose CB doesn't work for 53 (on two counts). My artifact doesn't either (which is irritating, as I wanted its first letter for my acrostic). But thinking about the staple boring commons (whether or not they're currently being reprinted) seems a good way to find ideas for 53. --AC
Alex, two of the cards we mentioned yesterday evening don't actually work. On a side note, I've completely finished my decklist now (It's mono-white bar two cards in the sideboard, as there are two rules that require multicolour) and am using a Mirrodin artifact in this slot--qqzm
As long as you're careful about fire in the art, sounds good. The ones to keep checking are #name = n * CMC, any 3's scattered around, and fire and swords in the art. (Although I had to disqualify one candidate because I'd acrosticked it with 9 others and didn't want to change any of those...) Anything from round Invasion-block also has to watch for, say, Urza in the art. --AC
I suggest people be *very* careful with their card for 53. I just had to disqualify 3 of my planned 4 options on the basis of 3's somewhere or other. Perhaps bring an alternative, or get someone else to check it... we wouldn't want to disqualify a deck because the sleeve with a "53" in it had a small picture of Urza or a bone in it :) --AC''
48. & 49. I really dislike stuff this general. The idea is to make it a challenge! --SF
I find 53 quite entertaining. I don't object to 48-49-style pretty general descriptions normally, but personally I'd be in favour of keeping 53 and amending 48-49 to be more specific. --AlexChurchill
By all means. I simply wanted to increase the number of not-creatures one was obliged to find, to redress the balance a little. Some ideas up there - people with better ones are welcome to put them instead. 53... would be a challenge, I suspect - if it's vaguely possible for those with normal collections, then it's certainly fun. -- TI
Notes on 52: A few planeswalkers for you to use: Urza Freyalise Jaya Ballard Jeska Serra Lord Windgrace Taysir Karn Teferi Nicol Bolas Tevesh Szat Feroz
(PeterTaylor) Presumably since Jeska was, Phage was? Also, what about Nevinyrral? (And was he Mirari-storyline?)
I'm not sure about the necromancer Nevinyrral, I'll have to look it up. Phage really doesn't count as a planeswalker since whilst she certainly had the planeswalker spark, she didn't ascend (with help from Karn) until after the death of Karona at the end of Scourge. Nevinyrral is definitely not from the Mirari storyline (Odyssey and Onslaught-blocks. A brief list of characters from it would be: Kamahl, Phage, Laquatus, Kirtar, Aboshan, Llawan, Chainer, Braids, the Cabal Patriach, Karona, Jeska, Balthor, Seton, Thriss, Teroh, and Pianna) --SF
1. Can anyone think of a search I could run for this? The only rare/uncommon not in decks I have is useless, and I'd rather not wade through commons without some idea of what I'm looking for. --CH
If you mean card description #1, might I assume that most of your commons that fit this bill would be from Invasion or Apocalypse? (There are about 7 such in Torment/Judgment?, and about 10 from Alliances) If so, I suggest you look at [Ben Bleweiss's cycles index] under Invasion. Cycles 3, 4, 7, 11, 15, 23, 24 from Invasion fit, as do Planeshift cycle 9 and some other Planeshift cards like MTG: Disciple of Kangee, and Apocalypse cycles 2 and 4 and a few other Apoc cards like MTG: Quagmire Druid. --AC
Hmm. I don't think I have a (playable) card. No matter, this should change tomorrow. --CH
Right. We now have a list of 75 cards, but there appears to still be debate over 53, and possibly over 48 & 49. Are there any others people wish to contest, and if not shall we pick a date to try and have such decks ready for (I, at least, will need to dismantle other decks for the purpose - so would rather know when to do it for)? I suggest the first GamesEvening of term - the 13th, I think. -- TI
Isn't there still debate over 43 too?
There is a GE on 6th Jan, but I won't be there, so 13th Jan is good for me. If anyone can't make that then 20th is good. --AlexChurchill
StuartFraser would be opposed to running this at a GE. However, the Darksteel prerelease and our Triple Invasion draft are both scheduled for Janurary already, so we've already got lots of Magic events upcoming, and a lack of weekends.
Hmm. Yes, I guess there are two ways we could do this. We could play all the decks against each other on a specific day, or we could have it a general thing ongoing for the whole term. Playing and tuning the Scavenger Hunt decks against each other as a random side happening during GamesEvenings or our III draft. I'd be up for either. --AlexChurchill
I would as well, conditional on finding a time/day - which is a pretty big if. Vague leanings towards GamesEvening, as a result. -- TI
GE is fine for me, but I can't make the 13th, there's an MCR dinner. I'd rather not lose another weekend - with the III around the 18th (IIRC) and the Darksteel the week or fortnight after, I suspect my life would not be worth living if I took another weekend to Magic in. --CH
AlexChurchill has a completed deck now, 75 cards in sleeves, each labelled with a different integer 1-75. He'll be bringing it to the draft Sunday 18th Jan afternoon for in-between games; or it's available for GamesEvenings? from now on. --AC (half the "scavenger hunt"ing challenge was actually finding the cards I'd written in the list, knowing I had in my collection *somewhere*...)
Assuming they're not being used for this contest, CH would be very interested in borrowing a Glory (for Donato Giancola's art - otherwise it's a crystal rod) and Stuart's Mind's Desire. He's happy to offer other stuff in temporary exchange.
If you can promise to take care of it (ie card sleeves), I could let you borrow my prerelease foil Glory. My deck might quite like that, thinking about it, but I've gone with something else, and it would be fiddly to change it now. --AlexChurchill
It will be sleeved, fear not. You can, in fact, hang on to it for the moment. I am currently nowhere near a deck-list. I've figured what I'm constructing, but not everything that goes in it yet. Or whether it's at all viable. Thanks! --CH
![[Home]](/img/text_logo.jpg){kind=logo}
MagicTheGathering/ScavengerHuntList