Storybook, isn't it? Congratulations to Ink-Treader, who avenged a loss in the same finals matchup many months ago!
I guess we just will need a tie breaker?
Congrats
I, for one, hope to see many, many more finals matchups for the both of you! Last month was a treat to run. Thanks to both the finalists and all the contestants for great cards.
Congrats Ink-Treader. You too IcarriFA. You both did a fantastic job.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
(22 Total) - October 2014; December 2014; January 2015; April 2015; June 2015; August 2015; September 2015; November 2015; December 2015(T); January 2016; March 2016(T); April 2016; June 2016; October 2016; December 2016(T); February 2017; April 2017; December 2017; November 2018(T); January 2019; April 2019; June 2019
(8 Total) - May 2015; May 2016; June 2016; August 2016; October 2016; December 2016; October 2017; May 2019
(7 Total) - September 2015; October 2015; January 2016; March 2016; April 2016; July 2016(T); March 2019(T)
Yea, when I was looking it up I was shocked to discover that "aven" the bird isn't a word that made its way from the Latin "avis, avis". The only word "aven" in English is a type of flower. I suppose the association of birds with prophecy and augury in Roman culture was too strong for the word to be ported over to English in the Middle Ages.
Having learned Latin and played Magic as a little kid, I was doomed from the very beginning!
Seriously though, my appreciation for the design of cards like Aven Mindcensor grew - birds of ancient Rome would have been in the Jeskai colors with a focus on all things dealing with oracles and prophecy.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Follow me on Twitch if you're interested in watching competitive league drafts.
Play MTGO? Check out my latest MTGO finance articles on Quiet Speculation.
In an alternate reality, I assumed the judging would take the same form as the previous round, and pre-evaluated the 6 entries below mine in chronological order. Arborification took 2nd place in that grouping, for essentially the same reasons you've laid out here.
This exercise taught me that designing planeswalkers that feel different and unique is not easy and that the scope of archetypal tropes for Planeswalker design is narrower than I had imagined, and therefore that Wizards R&D is pumping out too many of them; that seems likely to be playing a significant factor in why so many of their designs feel stale and fail to excite; it's okay to regurgitate commons, but not mythics and designs of their flagship card type. They need to cut the number of planeswalkers per block in half and need to be more willing to use block-specific mechanics in their planeswalkers, as they did with Narset.
Quality: in the -3 "it's" (verb) has become "its" (possessive).
Oh, geez. That's embarrassing. I definitely do know the difference. My phone is less scrupulous, and always defaults to the contraction. If I don't pay attention, all of my itses become it'ses.
EDIT:
Quote from kjsharp »
So, summary judgment: I can tell that a lot of care went into balancing the card, and I appreciate the ambitious nature of designing a two-mana planeswalker. I *think* this card is balanced enough to be printed. The BB cost was essential for making me happy about this design, for this could be a reason to go heavily black in a standard environment. I'm unsure whether the card within itself is balanced - meaning that I'm unsure that the card fosters meaningful choice and multiple lines of play; and if it isn't, then the card should be a sorcery instead of a planeswalker. Nevertheless, I can tell that your goal was to design a 2-mana planeswalker for the sake of designing a 2-mana planeswalker, and I think you were successful in creating a good draft of one. A thoughtful and delicate execution!
Very incisive and thoughtful comments. Yes, the reasoning for designing a 2CMC planeswalker had a lot to do with the challenge of it. And yes, balancing the card took much careful tinkering (and thus forum edits. Probably upwards of 20). I'm glad that comes across. I agree that the second ability is the most versatile and generally useful of the three, but I had to also consider that you'd need a reason to play her on turn 2, when your graveyard is probably empty. In fact, I envisioned the primary line of play to be scrying 2, helping to set up a favorable -3 the turn after. Playing her in the late game, the -2 ability will almost always be an immediate choice, but it's mostly useless for the first few turns in any "fair" deck.
Worth noting is that this is not a planeswalker that is intended to stick around very long. If you can manage to keep her safe for a while (by either just sitting on her or ticking her up without paying the 2 life), then she could function as sort of a Dark Confidant with vanishing. I truly appreciate your critique. I don't feel unfairly judged, even if I don't completely agree with the criticism.
EDIT2: I absolutely agree with multiple judges' criticisms of forcing the transform on the -3 ability... in fact, its inclusion was a mistake. As noted above, I wanted her to be able to function as a limited-use (but not single-use-only) Dark Confidant. As also noted above, the card went through many revisions, including a version that transformed with the -3 instead of as a death trigger. That clause apparently got left in. Serves me right for posting before I had settled on a final design. Oh well :|
Is there a reason why the schedule this round is so rushed? We have been given 2.5 days to design 2 cards. All of the other rounds have been about 5-6 days. Is this round always this short?
Roccovsky, I don't think that the line of play you describe there is realistic - like, I can definitely see a deck play this on turn 2 into an empty board to tick it up as a last resort, but decks that want a Dark Confidant effect will not the be sort that want to use up their second turn to pay 2 life and filter their draw, and midrange decks have better things to do on turn 2. Decks that want Dark Confidant would not want this card because it is not proactive at either generating a board presence or diminishing the opponent's board presence(I think your card is more intended for grindy midrange decks, both function wise and power-level wise, and most of the card's power resides in its ability to get back creatures from the graveyard, an ability that rewards having higher CMC creatures, which is not what a Dark Confidant deck looks like. This looks like a Standard/Limited card to me, not a Modern/Legacy/Vintage/Commander card). I think if people use the +1, it will be to generate loyalty and create a "loyalty bank" so that they can Resourceful Return multiple times later in the game. That's something you can do on turn 2 if you don't have a Grim Flayer or Glint-Sleeve Siphoner in hand and don't need to leave up mana for Grasp of Darkness or Fatal Push. And that's a legitimate, cool, and fairly-costed utility to give the card. I think 95% of the time the card would be an upgraded Resourceful Return cast in the late game, and fairly costed at BB.
You *might* begin to sell me on your envisioned primary line of play if you made the card have the Glint-Sleeve Siphoner life loss instead of the Dark Confidant life loss, and in that case I'd advocate not dropping the forced-transform clause to ensure that the card's power level is within an appropriate range. Even with the forced-transform clause I would have power level reservations for the reason I stated in my feedback. A turn 2 planeswalker generating meaningful persistent and continuous advantage is problematic, like Smuggler's Copter, because it hinders the opponent's ability to meaningfully execute the MTG equivalent of a chess opening on equal footing. I'd have to think more about that proposed design to give a good assessment about its power level, and even then I'd probably have to play with the card to be confident in my assessment. I don't think yours, as submitted, does generate a meaningful advantage that spirals out of control when played on turn 2, so I thought the power level was appropriate and showed thoughtful design.
To that end, I would consider dropping the 3rd ability entirely. There's nothing wrong with a two-ability planeswalker.
Is there a reason why the schedule this round is so rushed? We have been given 2.5 days to design 2 cards. All of the other rounds have been about 5-6 days. Is this round always this short?
It's the semis. There's no need to give a wider public the chance to enter, there's a defined list of very few contestants, and you should have the skill to design cards on "short" (really not all that short) notice.
kj: Yes, the Liliana was designed with Standard and Limited strategies in mind (same as WotC purports to do). The bottom line is that 2-mana 'walkers have a design complication that most other cards don't, and you outlined it in this last post — there needs to be a reason to play it over any other card on turn 2, but second-turn plays shouldn't be game-breaking. Striking that balance while keeping the card versatile and flavorful is tough.
My least favorite part of the design (besides the accidental transformation clause in her -3 ability), is the amount of life loss she inflicts if her first and third abilities are used in the same game. Specifically, I wish I'd have found a better way to empower her -3 without life loss at all. That way, there's not a huge cost to have what amounts to little game-impact the turn she comes down (in the early game, anyway). I toyed with lots of combinations of effects, but couldn't find something I thought balanced value and fairness. That balance is still a bit off, as you've noted. Thanks for being able to appreciate the delicacy of the design, in any case. It ain't perfect, but it's probably the card I've spend the most effort on so far.
It ain't perfect, but it's probably the card I've spend the most effort on so far.
It was a great submission and a well-designed card. I enjoyed thinking about it a lot and I learned a lot about the difficulties involved in designing 2-mana planeswalkers from it. Like an acrobat, you walked the tight-rope very well by my eye.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Follow me on Twitch if you're interested in watching competitive league drafts.
Play MTGO? Check out my latest MTGO finance articles on Quiet Speculation.
Well, Roccovsky doesn't actually want to host, which sounds like it'd result in a bad time for everybody. Barring someone else who steps forward for real between now and the 31st, I will host June, as I have an idea for it anyhow.
I do enjoy designing and hosting forum contests like this. I'd still rather participate as an entrant on account of being rather new to the scene, but if no one else wants the job, I'm happy to step in.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
I guess we just will need a tie breaker?
Congrats
I, for one, hope to see many, many more finals matchups for the both of you! Last month was a treat to run. Thanks to both the finalists and all the contestants for great cards.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
Monkey Wrench
Artifact — Equipment
Equipped creature gets +1/+0 and has " , , Sacrifice Monkey Wrench: Counter target noncreature spell."
Equip
Congrats Ink-Treader. You too IcarriFA. You both did a fantastic job.
It's not due for another day or two right? I don't do it all in one sitting.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
Having learned Latin and played Magic as a little kid, I was doomed from the very beginning!
I am but a mere Kangaroo. I'm not a dog sophisticated enough to smoke a pipe and play poker
EDIT: Very incisive and thoughtful comments. Yes, the reasoning for designing a 2CMC planeswalker had a lot to do with the challenge of it. And yes, balancing the card took much careful tinkering (and thus forum edits. Probably upwards of 20). I'm glad that comes across. I agree that the second ability is the most versatile and generally useful of the three, but I had to also consider that you'd need a reason to play her on turn 2, when your graveyard is probably empty. In fact, I envisioned the primary line of play to be scrying 2, helping to set up a favorable -3 the turn after. Playing her in the late game, the -2 ability will almost always be an immediate choice, but it's mostly useless for the first few turns in any "fair" deck.
Worth noting is that this is not a planeswalker that is intended to stick around very long. If you can manage to keep her safe for a while (by either just sitting on her or ticking her up without paying the 2 life), then she could function as sort of a Dark Confidant with vanishing. I truly appreciate your critique. I don't feel unfairly judged, even if I don't completely agree with the criticism.
EDIT2: I absolutely agree with multiple judges' criticisms of forcing the transform on the -3 ability... in fact, its inclusion was a mistake. As noted above, I wanted her to be able to function as a limited-use (but not single-use-only) Dark Confidant. As also noted above, the card went through many revisions, including a version that transformed with the -3 instead of as a death trigger. That clause apparently got left in. Serves me right for posting before I had settled on a final design. Oh well :|
Roccovsky, I don't think that the line of play you describe there is realistic - like, I can definitely see a deck play this on turn 2 into an empty board to tick it up as a last resort, but decks that want a Dark Confidant effect will not the be sort that want to use up their second turn to pay 2 life and filter their draw, and midrange decks have better things to do on turn 2. Decks that want Dark Confidant would not want this card because it is not proactive at either generating a board presence or diminishing the opponent's board presence(I think your card is more intended for grindy midrange decks, both function wise and power-level wise, and most of the card's power resides in its ability to get back creatures from the graveyard, an ability that rewards having higher CMC creatures, which is not what a Dark Confidant deck looks like. This looks like a Standard/Limited card to me, not a Modern/Legacy/Vintage/Commander card). I think if people use the +1, it will be to generate loyalty and create a "loyalty bank" so that they can Resourceful Return multiple times later in the game. That's something you can do on turn 2 if you don't have a Grim Flayer or Glint-Sleeve Siphoner in hand and don't need to leave up mana for Grasp of Darkness or Fatal Push. And that's a legitimate, cool, and fairly-costed utility to give the card. I think 95% of the time the card would be an upgraded Resourceful Return cast in the late game, and fairly costed at BB.
You *might* begin to sell me on your envisioned primary line of play if you made the card have the Glint-Sleeve Siphoner life loss instead of the Dark Confidant life loss, and in that case I'd advocate not dropping the forced-transform clause to ensure that the card's power level is within an appropriate range. Even with the forced-transform clause I would have power level reservations for the reason I stated in my feedback. A turn 2 planeswalker generating meaningful persistent and continuous advantage is problematic, like Smuggler's Copter, because it hinders the opponent's ability to meaningfully execute the MTG equivalent of a chess opening on equal footing. I'd have to think more about that proposed design to give a good assessment about its power level, and even then I'd probably have to play with the card to be confident in my assessment. I don't think yours, as submitted, does generate a meaningful advantage that spirals out of control when played on turn 2, so I thought the power level was appropriate and showed thoughtful design.
To that end, I would consider dropping the 3rd ability entirely. There's nothing wrong with a two-ability planeswalker.
It's the semis. There's no need to give a wider public the chance to enter, there's a defined list of very few contestants, and you should have the skill to design cards on "short" (really not all that short) notice.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
My least favorite part of the design (besides the accidental transformation clause in her -3 ability), is the amount of life loss she inflicts if her first and third abilities are used in the same game. Specifically, I wish I'd have found a better way to empower her -3 without life loss at all. That way, there's not a huge cost to have what amounts to little game-impact the turn she comes down (in the early game, anyway). I toyed with lots of combinations of effects, but couldn't find something I thought balanced value and fairness. That balance is still a bit off, as you've noted. Thanks for being able to appreciate the delicacy of the design, in any case. It ain't perfect, but it's probably the card I've spend the most effort on so far.
Good luck in the semis.
Edit: unless that means that he couldn't participate, in which case I don't want to be so cruel. Even pranksters have a heart
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
Sorry, my Texas is showing.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝