(This banner is my own elaboration on the art of the card Hour of Glory by Svetlin Velinov.)
July MCC Round 2
"The Scorpion's Sting"
This month we're going to focus on the mechanics and flavor of HOU. You might have realized that each round this month has been shaped around one of Bolas's insect gods, closing with the God-Pharaoh himself. In this round, we will look at the Scorpion one. Its poison is lethal even for the gods of the trials. Mechanically, this corresponds to a shift in focus about -1/-1 counters: in AKH you'd most often put them on your own creatures, in HOU you'll put them on opposing creatures, and they can conveniently kill even indestructible creatures, such as the gods of the trials. Now, imagine you're taking on the role of the Scorpion and have a giant sting able to spit out -1/-1 counters on opposing creatures at will. What do you do with it?
Main challenge: Design a card that contains the phrase "put (some number of) -1/-1 counter(s) on (some number of) (target) creature(s) (target/an) opponent controls". Please read clarifications.You're going to poison your enemies, that much's for sure.
Subchallenge 1: The card is a permanent.You're a scorpion, not a bee that loses its sting after it hits just once...
Subchallenge 2: The card's color identity does not contain black.Your sting is not just like that of any other mundane scorpion.
I'm glad we already have a lot of entries, but I also see many of these entries that at best don't fully meet the main challenge and at worst would need to be DQ'ed. Please everyone notice:
the -1/-1 counters have to go exclusively and specifically ONLY on opposing creatures.
If your card is able to do that but can also work on yourself and/or your own creatures, instead of or even in addition to your opponents' ones, such as just putting the -1/-1 counters on "target creature" (with no "opponent controls" part, so it could be their creature, but it could also be yours) or targeting/enchanting a player (any player, not specifically an "opponent", so that it could also be you technically, and no, it does not matter that strategically you'd never enchant yourself with it, you still could potentially) and then referring to them, well, all of that's out of the intent of the main challenge. Also, I included the template for a reason. While "distributing" -1/-1 counters instead of "putting" them might be an acceptable bend (provided the -1/-1 counters can ONLY go on your opponents' creatures) due to how templating works, other variations should only be done where it's strictly necessary for the card to work.
TLDR: Make sure the creature(s) getting the -1/-1 counters can never be your own under any circumstance.
You have been warned. I will not repeat this while the design phase is underway. Everyone that has already posted, please check your entry to see if it conforms to this and make sure that it does by the design deadline. Everyone that has yet to post, please keep this into account when designing your card. Thanks in advance to everyone for your attention and collaboration.
"Whenever a spell or ability you control puts one or more -1/-1 counters on a creature enchanted player controls, Curse of Burning Sands deals 1 damage to that player."
If you can be the enchanted player, no. If only an opponent can ever be enchanted player, yes. In other words, if the previous line is "enchant player", no. If it is "enchant opponent", yes.
Main Challenge The card needs to contain that exact pattern in its rules text. The only adjustments you can make are the parts in brackets. Your card can do anything else in addition to the required text.
The required phrase can be contained as a simple part of the rules text or within an ability. Notice that it starts with the word "put". Anything can come before it. For example, it can be part of an instant's rules text ("Put a -1/-1 counter..."), of an activated ability ("M: Put a -1/-1 counter..."), or even of a triggered ability as the trigger condition ("Whenever you put a -1/-1 counter..." or "Whenever you put one or more -1/-1 counters...") or the effect ("When (trigger), put a -1/-1 counter...", for example as an ETB ability). All of these count, as long as the phrase after the word "put" strictly follows the required pattern. In particular, pay attention that the part "an opponent controls" is required.
The card can also affect multiple opponents for multiplayer purposes. The intent of the challenge is forcing you to put the -1/-1 counters specifically on opposing creatures instead of your own creatures or any creatures.
Examples of things that pass the challenge (not an exhaustive list):
Put a -1/-1 counter on target creature an opponent controls.
Put two -1/-1 counters on target creature an opponent controls.
Put X -1/-1 counters on target creature an opponent controls. (with X defined in the rest of the rules text or in the mana cost)
Put a -1/-1 counter on each creature target opponent controls.
Put a -1/-1 counter on each creature your opponents controls.
Put a -1/-1 counter on any number of (target) creatures your opponents controls.
Any mix-and-match of the ones above.
Subchallenge 1
Should be self-explanatory. A permanent is anything but an instant or sorcery. Another way to word this challenge would be "The card is not an instant or sorcery."
Subchallenge 2
Remember that color identity includes all colored mana symbols of any kind not just in the mana cost but also in the rules text. This means you can't have any black mana symbols anywhere on the card, including hybrid mana symbols containing black or black Phyrexian mana.
Feel free to ask any additional questions you might have in the discussion thread.
A friendly reminder I left everyone a few months ago but it's still 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.
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.
DEADLINES
Design deadline: Saturday, July 15th 2017 23:59 EDT
Judging deadline: Tuesday, July 18th 2017 23:59 EDT
Only the above players are allowed to submit a card. To everyone else, better luck next month!
BRACKETS
Cardz5000 did not post a card. This means we have one bracket with only three players. As usual in Round 2, the top 2 from each bracket advance to the next round.
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.)
Brutality of the Second Sun2WW
Enchantment (R)
At the beginning of combat on each opponent's turn, put a -1/-1 counter on target creature that player controls. Then, if you control a Desert or there is a Desert card in your graveyard, tap that creature and you gain 1 life. "The wailing...the beating of breasts...a babe's clutching of its mother's cloak...these have become commonplace out here in the desert, and one never gets used to it."
Poison-Toed Frog1GG
Creature – Frog (U)
When Poison-Toed Frog enters the battlefield, put two -1/-1 counters on target creature you control.
When Poison-Toed Frog dies, you may distribute a number of -1/-1 counters equal to the number of -1/-1 counters on Poison-Toed Frog among any number of target creatures your opponents control.
3/4 “If handled properly, this little cutie can make even your largest enemy croak.” – Hapatra, Vizier of Poisons
Patient Monitor1G
Creature - Lizard [R]
Creatures your opponents control with counters on them block each combat if able.
Whenever you put one or more -1/-1 counters on a creature an opponent controls, Patient Monitor gets +1/+1 and gains deathtouch until end of turn. Most creatures in the Menagerie are meant to test initiates' strength. Others only punish weakness.
2/2
Disarming Paincaster1RR
Creature - Minotaur Shaman [R]
Instants and sorceries you control deal damage to creatures in the form of -1/-1 counters.
Whenever you put one or more -1/-1 counters on a creature an opponent controls, exile the top card of your library. Until end of turn, you may play that card. “Whatever doesn’t kill them leaves them weaker.”
2/2
Wall of Scars1W
Creature - Wall [U]
Defender
Whenever Wall of Scars blocks a creature, put a -1/-1 counter on that creature.
0/4
Scalding Sands1RR
Enchantment [R]
At the beginning of each opponent's upkeep, put a -1/-1 counter on target creature that player controls. 2RR: Each creature with a -1/-1 counter on it deals 1 damage to its controller. Expelled from their city, the people of Amonkhet faced challenges daily from every aspect of the environment.
Pain Engine4
Artifact Creature - Construct (U)
When you cast Pain Engine, you may put a -1/-1 counter on target creature an opponent controls.
Pain Engine's power and toughness are each equal to the number of -1/-1 counters among creatures your opponents control. Where others see suffering, it sees only sustenance.
*/*
Contagion Husk3
Artifact - Equipment [Rare]
Living Weapon (When this Equipment enters the battlefield, create a 0/0 black Germ creature token, then attach this to it.)
Equipped creature gets +1/+1.
When equipped creature dies, put X -1/-1 counters on target creature an opponent controls, where X is the equipped creature's power.
Equip 3
Stingsearer3R
Creature - Scorpion (R)
First strike
When Stingsearer enters the battlefield, put a -1/-1 counter on target creature an opponent controls.
If Stingsearer would deal damage to a creature with a -1/-1 counter or a player who controls a creature with a -1/-1 counter on it, it deals twice that much damage instead.
3/3
Zealot of the God-PharaohWW
Creature - Human Cleric (Rare) T: You may reveal a Bolas card from your hand. If you do, put a -1/-1 counter on target creature an opponent controls and tap it. T: Destroy target permanent. Activate this ability only if you control a Bolas planeswalker.
2/2
Vicious Androctonus3BB
Creature - Giant Scorpion (Rare)
Menace
Whenever Vicious Androctonus deals combat damage to a player, put a -1/-1 counter on each creature that player controls.
5/3
Dissolver of Flesh2R
Creature - Insect Horror (R)
Haste
You may exert Dissolver of Flesh as it attacks. (It won't untap during your next untap step.)
Whenever you exert a creature, you may put a -1/-1 counter on target creature an opponent controls.
3/2
I'm glad we already have a lot of entries, but I also see many of these entries that at best don't fully meet the main challenge and at worst would need to be DQ'ed. Please everyone notice:
the -1/-1 counters have to go exclusively and specifically ONLY on opposing creatures.
If your card is able to do that but can also work on yourself and/or your own creatures, instead of or even in addition to your opponents' ones, such as just putting the -1/-1 counters on "target creature" (with no "opponent controls" part, so it could be their creature, but it could also be yours) or targeting/enchanting a player (any player, not specifically an "opponent", so that it could also be you technically, and no, it does not matter that strategically you'd never enchant yourself with it, you still could potentially) and then referring to them, well, all of that's out of the intent of the main challenge. Also, I included the template for a reason. While "distributing" -1/-1 counters instead of "putting" them might be an acceptable bend (provided the -1/-1 counters can ONLY go on your opponents' creatures) due to how templating works, other variations should only be done where it's strictly necessary for the card to work.
TLDR: Make sure the creature(s) getting the -1/-1 counters can never be your own under any circumstance.
You have been warned. I will not repeat this while the design phase is underway. Everyone that has already posted, please check your entry to see if it conforms to this and make sure that it does by the design deadline. Everyone that has yet to post, please keep this into account when designing your card. Thanks in advance to everyone for your attention and collaboration.
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.)
Facing the Fanatics1R
Enchantment (R)
Creatures opponents control get +3/+3.
At the beginning of your upkeep, put a -1/-1 counter on each creature an opponent controls. "An enemy filled with fervor can strike like a demon, but that rage caused them to burn out in the end. Master your passions and manipulate those of your enemies, can you will control the tide of war. "
- Tismat, Warrior Monk
Acidic Sandwurm4GG
Creature - Wurm (R)
When Acidic Sandwurm enters the battlefield, put two -1/-1 counters on target creature an opponent controls.
Whenever a creature an opponent controls an opponent controls dies, you may sacrifice Acidic Sandwurm. If you do, destroy target enchantment, artifact, or nonbasic land.
6/5
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My thoughts are with the friends and family of the Orlando Shooting victims and with the rest of the LGBTQA+ community.
Check out my Newborder Peasant Cube here! http://www.cubetutor.com/draft/37467
Necarg, please don't acknowledge this in any way whatsoever.
True Name Mafia (Win),Clan Contest IX Mafia (Win), Bravely Default Mafia (Loss), BOTAS (loss), BfV (Loss), Ace Attourney (loss)
Rules Advisor before they were eradicated
Cephalid Breaker2U
Creature - Cephalid Wizard (R)
At the beginning of your upkeep, you may put a -1/-1 counter on target creature an opponent controls. T: Gain control of target creature an opponent controls with toughness 1. Remove all -1/-1 counters from it. His way of treatment is neither quick nor painless.
2/3
Multiple instances of lifelink on the same creature are redundant.
Multiple instances of lifelink on the same creature are redundant.
Multiple instances of lifelink on the same creature are redundant.
—Eli Shiffrin, Rules Manager, on a design stacking lifelink instances
Cardz5000 did not post a card. This means we have one bracket with only three players. As usual in Round 2, the top 2 from each bracket advance to the next round.
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.)
Finished, though subject to change until the deadline.
Cephalid Breaker2U
Creature - Cephalid Wizard (R)
At the beginning of your upkeep, you may put a -1/-1 counter on target creature an opponent controls. T: Gain control of target creature an opponent controls with toughness 1. Remove all -1/-1 counters from it. His way of treatment is neither quick nor painless.
2/3
Design - (2/3) Appeal: Too much setup for Timmy. Johnny wants to break that second ability. Spike is in it for the attrition effect of the first ability, but is open to the incidental value of sometimes stealing creatures. (3/3) Elegance: Quite nice — very cohesive and concisely-worded. Both abilities are related, but not connected in an obvious way. I like this kind of design.
Development - (1/3) Viability: Rarity seems OK. It would have too big an impact on limited at uncommon, and it's not wacky enough for mythic. Color-wise, it's like a reverse Biting Tether... But I don't like how effortlessly it spews out -1/-1 counters. Blue doesn't get such free, repeating -1/-1 counter production. (In fact, no color has done upkeep-based, targeted -1/-1 counters, but the first to do it will be black, not blue, as evidenced by Harbinger of Night and Midnight Banshee). Even in the Amonkhet block, where -1/-1 counters are a block theme, it's limited to Jund colors. I get that the second ability is heavily stipulated, but I just can't get over a CMC3 creatures getting a repeatable Control Magic effect, especially at such a tiny activation cost(!) (2/3) Balance: There are ample ways to break this in constructed formats, especially the eternal ones, using Humility and/or Twiddle effects. Giving the second ability even a tiny mana cost would have mitigated this sufficiently. I don't THINK it's too powerful to be printed into Standard, but it maybe should cost 4 mana?. In limited, it's less of an issue, but in most draft environments, that first ability alone would make this an auto-pick. At rare, I'm not too concerned, but it would be the bane of any draft pod. Casuals like the first ability, and in multiplayer formats there will be three times the potential targets for the second ability. Commander seems like the most appropriate place for this.
Creativity - (2.5/3) Uniqueness: As mentioned, it's a reversed Biting Tether in creature form, but the result is something that feels like a different card. Taken individually, the first ability is nothing special, and the second ability is clever and engaging. This would be a fun way to do steal effects, even if I have qualms about its execution here. (1/3) Flavor: The name sounds weird. Kind of bland and ambiguous. Are you referring to the concept of "breaking" someone via interrogation or torture? If so, a less oblique name might have been a better choice. Breakers are also a kind of ocean wave, which seems like it's the intended meaning, given the creature type. Your mechanical flavor is spot-on. It perfectly depicts the turning of an enemy prisoner... Then the flavor text throws it all out the window. Treatments? Wait, is he a doctor or an interrogator? Now I'm not confident about the rest of my flavor critique. In a vacuum, I like the gist of the flavor text, but "way of treatment" really needed a more professional wording.
Polish - (3/3) Quality: I see no issues (2/2) *Main Challenge: Yup (2/2) Subchallenges: Blue is not black
Total: 18.5/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Pain Engine4
Artifact Creature - Construct (U)
When you cast Pain Engine, you may put a -1/-1 counter on target creature an opponent controls.
Pain Engine's power and toughness are each equal to the number of -1/-1 counters among creatures your opponents control. Where others see suffering, it sees only sustenance.
*/*
Design - (.5/3) Appeal: Timmy sees a 1/1 for 4, and will promptly ignore this forever. Johnny likes cards like this normally, but investing heavily in a -1/-1 strategy just to be able to reliably make this under- or even fairly-costed is outside the reach of even his enthusiasm for jank. And for once, this is a card Spike and Timmy can wholeheartedly agree on. (2.5/3) Elegance: The "When you cast [this creature]" clause will always be a bit cumbersome, but I understand why it's here. That aside, the whole card fits together like a precision machine. Very elegant.
Development - (1.5/3) Viability: Colorless was an odd choice for this card, especially with the "when you cast ~" ability. Flavor-wise, I get it. It's a pain engine. But where the color-pie is concerned, black would have been a better option. Still, it respects the rules and conventional guidelines just fine. No one will be happy to see this in an uncommon slot during draft. This really needed to be common. (1/3) Balance: Though it's possible for this card to be broken, only the most determined and masochistic Johnnies will ever attempt it. In limited, only decks that already have a critical mass of -1/-1 counter production will consider playing it, and then only reluctantly. For constructed, I can't see a single Standard environment having the density of offensive -1/-1 counter effects needed to make this any better than a vanilla 3/3 for 4 or so. And in any eternal format, EDH included, the payoff wouldn't be nearly worth it.
Creativity - (2/3) Uniqueness: Not many artifact creatures have variable stats, and not many constructs dole out -1/-1 counters (only one, in fact). This kind interplay between */* creatures and their ETB abilities is nothing new, but I like how it's implemented here. (2.5/3) Flavor: Great flavor, though I would have fallen in love with this if it were a scarecrow. The name is evocative, and meshes excellently with the mechanics of the card. Your flavor actively improves my enjoyment of the overall flavor, which is exactly what it should do. My only gripe is that the word "only" is unnecessary here, since you're already contrasting what it sees with what everyone else sees. Use adverbs sparingly; they often just muddy the message. Polish - (3/3) Quality: I see no issues. (2/2) *Main Challenge: Yup (2/2) Subchallenges: Colorless isn't black, but this could easily have been a black card with a different creature type. Full points awarded, as the flavor carries it. Total: 17.5/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Patient Monitor1G
Creature - Lizard [R]
Creatures your opponents control with counters on them block each combat if able.
Whenever you put one or more -1/-1 counters on a creature an opponent controls, Patient Monitor gets +1/+1 and gains deathtouch until end of turn. Most creatures in the Menagerie are meant to test initiates' strength. Others only punish weakness.
2/2
Design - (2/3) Appeal: Timmy normally likes opponents to NOT block, and the Provoke effect here is too situational to convince him otherwise. Johnny cringes at parasitic strategies, but likes the open-endedness of that first ability. Spike really doesn't like parasitic strategies, but both abilities provide ample opportunities to control combat and out-skill his opponents. 1.5 points total between J and S. (1.5/3) Elegance: I do quite like the "creatures with counters" clause. Simple, easy to track, doesn't confuse combat decisions too much, very nice. Now, I know it's the whole point of the challenge, but I found it a little jarring going from a cares-about-counters static ability to an ability that triggers on adding -1/-1 counters, with no way for the card itself to add any counters. It's a prime example of parasitic design, which can often cause some confusion as to what the card really wants to do. For the purpose of these contests, where you design stand-alone cards, it's probably best to avoid.
Development - (3/3) Viability: Green does lizards, green does Provoke, green does -1/-1 counter value, and green does deathtouch... All good, color-wise. "Cares about (any) counters" is a mechanic I'm surprised we haven't seen yet. We have things like Prolifereate and Gilder Bairn, so I see no reason why this effect shouldn't be perfectly printable. Rare definitely seems correct here. Too much going on for an uncommon. Balanced a little differently, it could even be mythic (2.5/3) Balance: I love this thing in limited. It gets played in every green deck on account of being a bear with benefits (hereto after referred to as "BWB" ), but in some card pools, it will end up being a bear with only incidental benefits. That's not what any player wants from the rare slot. There's no obvious way to break the card in Standard, but it has a certain "build around me" feel to it that guarantees people will at least try. Commander players are fans, as it affects the entire board for just 2 mana the turn it comes down, so when it inevitably gets removed, it doesn't feel too bad. I recognize that it's possible that whatever environment it finds itself in would be capable of exploiting it beyond what's fair or reasonable, but that's not true generally. It's just as likely to end up a bulk rare after the EDH players nab their foil copies.
Creativity - (2/3) Uniqueness: As mentioned, the "cares about counters" clause is interesting and, frankly, overdue. On the other hand, the second ability comes off like it was drawn out of a "-1/-1 counter" hat. (2.5/3) Flavor: The name and creature type fit the mechanics very, very well. Opportunistic little reptile! Oddly enough, same as JamBlock's entry, the word "only" in the flavor text is extraneous, for a similar reason. In this case, the flavor text suffers a bit more for it, so docking half a point. Besides that, everything meshes just fine.
Polish - (2.5/3) Quality: In the flavor text, the apostrophe should follow the final S in "initiates'". (2/2) *Main Challenge: Yup (2/2) Subchallenges: Green is not black.
Total: 20/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Scalding Sands1RR
Enchantment [R]
At the beginning of each opponent's upkeep, put a -1/-1 counter on target creature that player controls. 2RR: Each creature with a -1/-1 counter on it deals 1 damage to its controller. Expelled from their city, the people of Amonkhet faced challenges daily from every aspect of the environment.
Design - (1.5/3) Appeal: Timmy likes this card quite a lot; it definitely feels like “scalding sands”. With other -1/-1 counters, the effect could potentially be huge!
Johnny agrees with Timmy; more -1/-1 counters will mean a bigger effect with this card, as well.
Spike is simply bored by this card. The second effect is too weak for spreading out the counters strategically to have any deeper meaning; it is a mana sink at best. Therefore, she defaults to the simplistic ‘nullify their best creature’ strategy that comes with cumulative -1/-1 counters. (2.5/3) Elegance: A lot of -1/-1 counters could lead to a little arithmetic, but nothing too terribly inelegant.
The main woe would be that, with the activated ability, any creatures you control with -1/-1 counters will also deal damage to you as well. This inelegance reminds me of the shroud versus hexproof problem, which was a problem that became so rampant that Wizards of the Coast changed shroud into hexproof because of it.
Development - (3/3) Viability: This is definitely red and is definitely a rare. Excellent! (2/3) Balance: I believe that while the initial cost of this card is quite fine, the second ability is just simply too weak. Charitably, it can be used as a mana sink for those last points of burn damage. Uncharitably, it is trinket text that takes away from the rest of the enchantment altogether, development-wise.
Creativity - (2/3) Uniqueness: The first effect is far from being particularly unique, but the second effect definitely comes to help and save the day in this regard. (2.5/3) Flavor: The flavor is pretty great; I just have one notable quibble. The main city of Amonkhet is called ‘Naktamun’, and it would make a lot more sense to reference Naktamun by name, at least in my honest opinion. Otherwise, the name is great, and the mechanics work together with the intended flavor nicely.
Polish - (3/3) Quality: Perfect! (2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge met! (2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges met!
Total: 20.5/25
Final thought: Admirable work, admiral!
Malice Recycling Machine3
Artifact (R)
Whenever a creature an opponent controls dies, untap Malice Recycling Machine. T, sacrifice a black creature: Put two -1/-1 counters on target creature an opponent controls. The MRM: an elegant fusion between technology and disposable underlings, for the eco-conscious evil overlord.
Design - (2/3) Appeal: First off, Tammy does not like this card; sacrificing her own creatures is not for her.
Jenny likes this card quite a bit; other ways of having her opponent’s creatures die allow her to repeat this effect until the opponent’s board is clear for whatever she wants to do.
Spike surely loves this card. It is very skill-intensive, and a deck with it should keep it in mind throughout the rest of the deck building process, let alone the game. Once it is on the battlefield, it has much in the way of nuance. If used poorly, this card can lose its controller the game. On the other hand, if used well, this card is a game winner. (3/3) Elegance: I spot nothing here that would constitute an inelegance.
Development - (1/3) Viability: Rare is likely the correct rarity for this card. Unfortunately, this rest of this card suffers from major viability problems. This card is useless outside of black, yet it is a colorless artifact. If it were a black enchantment, that viability problem would clear right up. Just as well, repeatable kill in the form of an engine like this generally quite unfun, especially for only three mana. 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? (0/3) Balance: If not for being significantly under-costed, this card is incredibly oppressive and unfun to play against; it is still too strong without the first line of rules text, but tacking that on as well only pushes this card over the edge into what I would call a broken card.
Consider a multiplayer game with multiple opponents, and this card only gets worse in that regard. This card does not even have to kill anything to be effective at worst; it is an overly potent combo piece at best. Plus, both abilities are at instant speed!
Maybe a singular -1/-1 counter would have worked out better; I am honestly not sure.
Creativity - (1/3) Uniqueness: Nothing that this card does is particularly unique, and there have been variants of this kind of card in the past. One of my personal favorites is an old card from Fifth Dawn of the first Mirrodin block called Blasting Station. (0.5/3) Flavor: Malice is not something that I would call recyclable, so I fail to see the flavorful connection there. I suppose that it makes some sense that this machine can untap repeatedly. But, why only black creatures; why not any creature? Overall, I do not find the flavor of this card to be particularly professional.
The abbreviation in the flavor text is what I could call cute, though.
Polish - (1.5/3) Quality: The second line of rules text possesses a capitalization error; “sacrifice” should be capitalized (minus half a point).
The other pair of quality errors are in the flavor text. Firstly, the colon “:” only ever goes after a complete sentence; “The MRM” is not a complete sentence without a predicate, for it is only a subject (minus half a point). Secondly, the comma after “underlings” and before “for” falsely hints that the latter is a conjunction rather than a preposition in this instance (minus half a point). (2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge met! (1.5/2) Subchallenges: Subchallenge 1 met!
As for Subchallenge 2, this card may not have a black color identity, but it is only playable if you control black creatures. Since it is almost completely benign without black creatures (outside of some shenanigan like artifact animation which I cannot say would be not worthwhile here), I cannot in good conscience award the full point to this card regarding the second subchallenge. It may have followed the letter of the subchallenge, but I heavily doubt that it followed the spirit of it.
Total: 12.5/25
Final thoughts: Trying to be clever to get that second subchallenge point is not worth breaking the color pie over. Nonetheless, I do sincerely hope that you participate in another MCC in the future!
Facing the Fanatics1R
Enchantment (R)
Creatures opponents control get +3/+3.
At the beginning of your upkeep, put a -1/-1 counter on each creature an opponent controls. "An enemy filled with fervor can strike like a demon, but that rage caused them to burn out in the end. Master your passions and manipulate those of your enemies, can you will control the tide of war. "
- Tismat, Warrior Monk
Design - (1.5/3) Appeal: Simply put, Timmy loves this card because it is a very big and memorable effect.
Johnny likes this card because quite a few shenanigans are possible with it. As an example, he could play a bunch of defenders and stall the board forever and ever and ever...
Spike hates this card; not only can it be a very fast way to lose a game of Magic, but it requires absolutely no skill to use. Either it sometimes works, or it crashes and burns miserably. (3/3) Elegance: I spot no inelegances here, but see Quality.
Development - (3/3) Viability: This card is most certainly a Rare. I am not entirely sure if this card is solely Red, but I am not sure what other color could go with it if it were to be multicolor.
There is a potential viability concern with Wizards of the Coast ever printing a card anything like this, but I suppose that there is a world were such could happen. (0/3) Balance: There is no world where this card is balanced. It is either very broken beyond belief, or absolutely and completely useless to the point of losing a game almost all on its own. Unfortunately, the lack of fairness within this card is almost the very definition of imbalance.
Notably, if the second ability had possessed a cost of some kind (likely a mana cost), this balance score would have gone up significantly.
Creativity - (2.5/3) Uniqueness: You may think that a card that is merely a mass Consuming Fervor would not earn almost full points for this criterion. However, I cannot find a single card that buffs all an opponent’s creatures with a continuous +N/+N bonus. The closest cards that come to mind affect all players, such as Archangel of Strife or Crescendo of War. Therefore, I am basically obligated to award this card almost full uniqueness points. (2/3) Flavor: The flavor of this card is great right up until the second half of the second sentence of the flavor text, which suffers from quality errors that significantly detract from the rest of this card’s flavor.
Polish - (1/3) Quality: The first line of rules text is missing the word ‘your’ in-between “creatures” and “opponents” (minus half a point).
The flavor text has more quality errors: “can you will control the tide of war” is a bit of a nonsense clause (minus half a point). There are two unnecessary spaces in the flavor text that are both out of place, one after each sentence of the flavor text (minus half a point). Lastly, there should not be a space between the dash (which should be a long dash ‘—‘) and the name “Tismat” (minus half a point). (2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge met! (2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges met!
Total: 17/25
Final thought: To be fair, I found that this card had a surprising amount of potential for budding from such a niche idea.
Poison-Toed Frog1GG
Creature – Frog (U)
When Poison-Toed Frog enters the battlefield, put two -1/-1 counters on target creature you control.
When Poison-Toed Frog dies, you may distribute a number of -1/-1 counters equal to the number of -1/-1 counters on Poison-Toed Frog among any number of target creatures your opponents control.
3/4 “If handled properly, this little cutie can make even your largest enemy croak.” – Hapatra, Vizier of Poisons
Design - (1.5/3) Appeal: All the player psychographics like this card because of the second line of rules text, which can lead to quite a big, rewarding, and tactical effect if more than four -1/-1 counters somehow end up on the creature (which is not hard to do in the Amonkhet block). (2/3) Elegance: The primary inelegance of this card is that its total text makes up a total of nine lines, which is too many for most Magic cards, let alone an Uncommon.
Development - (2/3) Viability: This card is obviously a Black card trying to masquerade with a Green mana cost in order to pass the second subchallenge. My apologies.
The rarity of Uncommon is appropriate for this card. (3/3) Balance: This card is actually just Soulstinger’s cousin once-removed. For the record, Soulstinger was a completely fine card. Little else needs to be mentioned as a result.
Creativity - (1/3) Uniqueness: The first line of rules text would have been unique if not for Amonkhet. Soulstinger, Ornery Kudu, and so forth serve as enough precedent to prevent this card from being unique. The only reason that the score for this criterion is not a mere half a point is because of the counters being distributed among multiple targets, which is vaguely unique enough. (1/3) Flavor: The name of this card is alright; it does its job and nothing more. The flavor and the mechanics of this card mesh well enough. However, the flavor text is unprofessional; this quote that has been credited to Hapatra is not at all within her character as a person. With that said, I find the pun of this flavor text to be cringe-inducing, and that is not a good feeling for the flavor of a Magic card.
Polish - (1/3) Quality: These quality errors are all in regards to this card’s flavor text.
Firstly, the flavor text should be before the power and toughness, not after it (minus half a point). Secondly, the word “croak” should not be bolded or italicized to express emphasis (see cards with emphasized words within their flavor text such as Sizzle, minus half a point). Thirdly, the accreditation for the quotation should have its own third line of flavor text (minus half a point). Fourthly, there should be a no space between the dash (which should be a long dash ‘—‘) and the name “Hapatra” (minus half a point). (1.5/2) Main Challenge:According to this month’s host, bravelion83, this card fails to meet the main challenge in its entirety.
However, I believe that your card otherwise meets the full spirit of the main challenge, disregarding the exact letter of it (therefore it is an acceptable bend). As a result, I have decided that your card is not subject to disqualification. This was not an easy decision. (2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges met!
Total: 15/25
Final thought: What ultimately brought down this card was not the bending with respect to the main challenge (however risky). The downfall of this card can be attributed to a lack of serious flavor and serious proofreading. Nevertheless, I do hope that you continue to participate in the MCC during the months to come in the future!
If your username has been bolded here, congratulations are in order — you have qualified for Round 3 of the July MCC! Best of luck!
If your username has not been bolded here, there is always next month. Thank you for competing; best of luck next month!
Stingsearer3R
Creature - Scorpion (R)
First strike
When Stingsearer enters the battlefield, put a -1/-1 counter on target creature an opponent controls.
If Stingsearer would deal damage to a creature with a -1/-1 counter or a player who controls a creature with a -1/-1 counter on it, it deals twice that much damage instead.
3/3
(2.5/3) Appeal - Timmy loves this. Johnny could probably use this somehow, even if the damage doubling ability being limited to this creature might be a bit limiting to him. Spike also likes this. (2/3) Elegance - Wordy, but still easy enough to understand. The wording of the last ability may be a bit convoluted but it's still quite easy to follow.
Development (2.5/3) Viability - We know red is allowed to put -1/-1 counters anywhere it would normally deal damage in blocks that use -1/-1 counters. That's why Scar is a black-red hybrid card. Dealing direct damage to creatures and doubling damage are both things that red can certainly do, so no problem with using -1/-1 counters instead of traditional damage to do that. It just feels a bit strange and would probably work better as a black-red gold card, but it's still acceptable. I agree with this being rare. (2.5/3) Balance - This looks definitely playable in limited. A Hill Giant used to be the base for a limited playable creature at that mana cost, but I'm not sure that's the case anymore. Anyway, this has three additional upsides which certainly make this playable in limited without any doubt. Maybe in constructed (Standard) too? It might be, but I'm not sure. Maybe monored players could try this as the top of the curve: the potential for double damage should look quite appealing to them. I'm not sure about other decks though. I see no particular problem in casual or multiplayer.
Creativity (2/3) Uniqueness - Just another twist on the classic Furnace of Rath effect, even if an original one indeed. I can't remember other cards with a similar wording before (the "a creature with a counter or a player who controls such creature" part). (2.5/3) Flavor - The name is fine and fits the mechanics well, but its composition reminded me immediately of Stingscourger, even though the meaning of the verbs to scourge and to sear is different and there is also no mechanical relation between the two cards besides both being red. That's just a minor point though. No flavor text. The text box is already full with the rules text, but according to MSE one or maybe two lines of flavor text could have fit by shrinking the font size just a little bit. Anyway, I agree that if it were printed for real, this card would have no flavor text, so it's not a big problem. Some would say it's not a problem at all, and one could argue that's indeed the case. Anyway, that's not an argument I'm interested in making right now, also because no cards in my bracket have flavor text this round, so it's just a matter of determining whether it was the right thing to do or not. In your case, it was.
Polish (2/3) Quality - It should be "...-1/-1 counter on it or a player..." (-0.5). Ironically, you got the second instance right. Also, it should be "...deals twice that much damage to that creature or player instead" (-0.5). As is, the replacement effect doesn't technically know what to deal damage to, even if the intent is clear. (2/2) Main Challenge - Good. (2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
Total: 20/25
Vicious Androctonus3BB
Creature - Giant Scorpion (Rare)
Menace
Whenever Vicious Androctonus deals combat damage to a player, put a -1/-1 counter on each creature that player controls.
5/3
Design (2/3) Appeal - Timmy really likes this card. I don't know how Johnny could use this. Spike likes a hard-to-block threat that weakens opposing creatures en masse. (3/3) Elegance - All good here.
Development (3/3) Viability - No problems with the color pie, rarity, or rules. (2.5/3) Balance - The mana cost couldn't be lower realistically. This is a must play if you're in black in limited. I don't think it will be this that pushes you into black if you're not already in it though as it's not splashable. All this unless it's your first pick of course, which it very well might. In constructed, this might see some Standard play as a finisher in some control deck, even if there probably will be better options for that in the format. The choice of which player to hit with this looks interesting in multiplayer.
Creativity (0.5/3) Uniqueness - Literally nothing new but the overall combination of effects. I'm sorry. (2/3) Flavor - I really like the name being a reference to a real kind of desert scorpion. Not only it makes a lot of sense with the mechanics and this card being set on Amonkhet, but it's also one of those occasions where a Magic card name can teach you something, and I love that. I've read of people who have learned obscure words just by playing Magic and then got advantage of it at school or at work. Another thing I really like in this card is the creature types being Giant Scorpion, just like another real card that is only a Giant by name and not by creature type. In cases like that, the creature is usually actually given the type. It's strange seeing the Giant subtype here but not there. Anyway, if one of those is wrong, it's the real card in my opinion and not yours. No flavor text even though there is plenty of room for it on this card. I still want to prize everything else, but I have to keep that into account. It's not a problem if there is no flavor text on the card because it doesn't fit, but if it fits (like in this case) I do expect it, even just a single line.
Polish (2.5/3) Quality - A space is missing between the name and mana cost (-0.5). (1.5/2) Main Challenge - Nowhere it's specified that the player must be the opponent. That was kind of the point of both the required template and my warning post. Still, there is no reasonable situation I can come up with when in this specific case the player is not your opponent. You can never attack yourself after all. This is a typical case where the letter of the law is not technically satisfied even though the spirit certainly is. The former is the reason why I'm deducting points here but the latter is the reason why the deduction is the smallest it can be (half a point). (1/2) Subchallenges - It's a permanent but it's black.
Total: 18/25
Contagion Husk3
Artifact - Equipment [Rare]
Living Weapon (When this Equipment enters the battlefield, create a 0/0 black Germ creature token, then attach this to it.)
Equipped creature gets +1/+1.
When equipped creature dies, put X -1/-1 counters on target creature an opponent controls, where X is the equipped creature's power.
Equip 3
Design (1.5/3) Appeal - I think Timmy doesn't care about this. Johnny could use the death trigger with a sacrifice engine or something like that. Spike likes the effect but thinks the costs are a bit too high, especially the equip one. (2.5/3) Elegance - A bit wordy, but otherwise fine.
Development (2.5/3) Viability - Giving all colors easy access to -1/-1 counters can be a little bend, but it's still definitely acceptable. It's not the first time that living weapon cards are bends. I definitely agree with the proposed rarity. (1.5/3) Balance - As I've already mentioned, the costs seem a bit on the safe side, but I can't really blame you for that. There is already a kind of self-balancing factor in that the P/T bonus makes the creature harder to kill, at least in combat, which makes the "dies" ability harder to trigger. So I'm not sure the extra safeness was needed. It would be an interesting card to playtest, that's for sure. It looks playable in limited provided that you have room for non-removal, non-combat-trick, noncreature spells, which is not always the case. Sometimes you will have to leave this out. I can't see this in constructed unless some combo involving the trigger arises. I see no problems in casual or multiplayer.
Creativity (1.5/3) Uniqueness - No existing cards with living weapon have a death trigger (I checked Gatherer for all existing cards with living weapon), so at least that's new. It's not exactly a groundbreaking innovation though. (2.5/3) Flavor - The name is fine, even if it immediately reminded me of Contagion Engine and Contagion Clasp. I would have really liked it if this card was a common to complete that vertical cycle, but unfortunately that's not the case. Still, the name fits the card concept well enough. No flavor text, but not a big problem because it wouldn't fit in the frame without significantly shrinking the font size, according to MSE. Like I said for iphanx's card, some would say it's not a problem at all, and one could argue that's indeed the case. Anyway, that's not an argument I'm interested in making right now, also because no cards in my bracket have flavor text this round, so it's just a matter of determining whether it was the right thing to do or not. In your case, it was.
Polish (2/3) Quality - The word "weapon" in "living weapon" should not be capitalized. When a keyword is made up of multiple words, only the first one is capitalized and only if the keyword is at the beginning of the line. The following ones are never capitalized (-1 for very well known fact, it's like writing "First Strike" after all, and it's one of the most blatant mistakes one can make in templating). (2/2) Main Challenge - Good. (2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
Total: 18/25
Stinging Volley2R
Enchantment (U)
Whenever you cast an instant or sorcery spell, put a -1/-1 counter on target creature an opponent controls.
Design (2/3) Appeal - Timmy isn't very interested in this card, but he can get behind it by pairing it with big spells: play a big spell and get rewarded for it. Johnny can definitely use the trigger with some recursion engine or things like that. Spike likes putting a -1/-1 as a bonus for each instant or sorcery he plays, but he's a bit turned down by a card that does only that. (3/3) Elegance - Perfect in this regard.
Development (3/3) Viability - We know red is allowed to put -1/-1 counters anywhere it would normally deal damage in blocks that use -1/-1 counters. That's why Scar is a black-red hybrid card. Dealing direct damage to creatures is a thing that red can certainly do, so no problem with using -1/-1 counters instead of traditional damage to do that. Interestingly, the trigger being on instants or sorceries being cast makes this feel better in red than it would do in black, because red interacts much more with instants and sorceries than black. In red, the trigger is at home and the effect acceptable. In black, the effect would be at home but the trigger would really feel wrong. So, in the end, I agree with this being a red card. No problems with rarity or game rules either. (2.5/3) Balance - The mana cost might look a bit high, but as the trigger is repeatable, better safe than sorry. I think this is playable in limited, especially in some archetype like the classic "UR spells", but I'd be very surprised if this card saw any kind of competitive constructed play. It's not a big problem though, not every card can or should be a constructed staple. I see no problems in casual or multiplayer.
Creativity (0.5/3) Uniqueness - Literally nothing new but the overall combination of effects. I'm sorry. (2/3) Flavor - The name is fine, even if it reminds me of Shard Volley, which is a completely different card even if it's still red. No flavor text even though there is plenty of room for it on this card, and I have to keep that into account. It's not a problem if there is no flavor text on the card because it doesn't fit, but if it fits (like in this case) I do expect it, even just a single line.
Polish (3/3) Quality - All good. (2/2) Main Challenge - 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.)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
(This banner is my own elaboration on the art of the card Hour of Glory by Svetlin Velinov.)
July MCC Round 2
"The Scorpion's Sting"
This month we're going to focus on the mechanics and flavor of HOU. You might have realized that each round this month has been shaped around one of Bolas's insect gods, closing with the God-Pharaoh himself. In this round, we will look at the Scorpion one. Its poison is lethal even for the gods of the trials. Mechanically, this corresponds to a shift in focus about -1/-1 counters: in AKH you'd most often put them on your own creatures, in HOU you'll put them on opposing creatures, and they can conveniently kill even indestructible creatures, such as the gods of the trials. Now, imagine you're taking on the role of the Scorpion and have a giant sting able to spit out -1/-1 counters on opposing creatures at will. What do you do with it?
Main challenge: Design a card that contains the phrase "put (some number of) -1/-1 counter(s) on (some number of) (target) creature(s) (target/an) opponent controls". Please read clarifications. You're going to poison your enemies, that much's for sure.
Subchallenge 1: The card is a permanent. You're a scorpion, not a bee that loses its sting after it hits just once...
Subchallenge 2: The card's color identity does not contain black. Your sting is not just like that of any other mundane scorpion.
Main Challenge
The card needs to contain that exact pattern in its rules text. The only adjustments you can make are the parts in brackets. Your card can do anything else in addition to the required text.
The required phrase can be contained as a simple part of the rules text or within an ability. Notice that it starts with the word "put". Anything can come before it. For example, it can be part of an instant's rules text ("Put a -1/-1 counter..."), of an activated ability ("M: Put a -1/-1 counter..."), or even of a triggered ability as the trigger condition ("Whenever you put a -1/-1 counter..." or "Whenever you put one or more -1/-1 counters...") or the effect ("When (trigger), put a -1/-1 counter...", for example as an ETB ability). All of these count, as long as the phrase after the word "put" strictly follows the required pattern. In particular, pay attention that the part "an opponent controls" is required.
The card can also affect multiple opponents for multiplayer purposes. The intent of the challenge is forcing you to put the -1/-1 counters specifically on opposing creatures instead of your own creatures or any creatures.
Examples of things that pass the challenge (not an exhaustive list):
Put a -1/-1 counter on target creature an opponent controls.
Put two -1/-1 counters on target creature an opponent controls.
Put X -1/-1 counters on target creature an opponent controls. (with X defined in the rest of the rules text or in the mana cost)
Put a -1/-1 counter on each creature target opponent controls.
Put a -1/-1 counter on each creature your opponents controls.
Put a -1/-1 counter on any number of (target) creatures your opponents controls.
Any mix-and-match of the ones above.
Subchallenge 1
Should be self-explanatory. A permanent is anything but an instant or sorcery. Another way to word this challenge would be "The card is not an instant or sorcery."
Subchallenge 2
Remember that color identity includes all colored mana symbols of any kind not just in the mana cost but also in the rules text. This means you can't have any black mana symbols anywhere on the card, including hybrid mana symbols containing black or black Phyrexian mana.
Feel free to ask any additional questions you might have in the discussion thread.
A friendly reminder I left everyone a few months ago but it's still valid:
(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.
DEADLINES
Design deadline: Saturday, July 15th 2017 23:59 EDT
Judging deadline: Tuesday, July 18th 2017 23:59 EDT
JUDGES
bravelion83
StonerOfKruphix
Rocco
Blydden
PLAYERS
admirableadmiral
Cardz5000
Conntroll
doomfish
iphanx
JamBlock
Jimmy Groove
kjsharp
LnGrrrR
Necarg
netn10
Raptorchan
Sub_Silentio
Tesco(black)lotus
The_Hittite
willows
Only the above players are allowed to submit a card. To everyone else, better luck next month!
BRACKETS
Cardz5000 did not post a card. This means we have one bracket with only three players. As usual in Round 2, the top 2 from each bracket advance to the next round.
Judge: bravelion83
iphanx
LnGrrrR
Tesco(black)lotus
willows
Judge: StonerOfKruphix
kjsharp
Necarg
netn10
Raptorchan
Judge: Rocco
doomfish
JamBlock
The_Hittite
Judge: Blydden
admirableadmiral
Conntroll
Jimmy Groove
Sub_Silentio
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.)
Enchantment (R)
At the beginning of combat on each opponent's turn, put a -1/-1 counter on target creature that player controls. Then, if you control a Desert or there is a Desert card in your graveyard, tap that creature and you gain 1 life.
"The wailing...the beating of breasts...a babe's clutching of its mother's cloak...these have become commonplace out here in the desert, and one never gets used to it."
Creature – Frog (U)
When Poison-Toed Frog enters the battlefield, put two -1/-1 counters on target creature you control.
When Poison-Toed Frog dies, you may distribute a number of -1/-1 counters equal to the number of -1/-1 counters on Poison-Toed Frog among any number of target creatures your opponents control.
3/4
“If handled properly, this little cutie can make even your largest enemy croak.” – Hapatra, Vizier of Poisons
Creature - Lizard [R]
Creatures your opponents control with counters on them block each combat if able.
Whenever you put one or more -1/-1 counters on a creature an opponent controls, Patient Monitor gets +1/+1 and gains deathtouch until end of turn.
Most creatures in the Menagerie are meant to test initiates' strength. Others only punish weakness.
2/2
Disarming Paincaster 1RRCreature - Minotaur Shaman [R]
Instants and sorceries you control deal damage to creatures in the form of -1/-1 counters.
Whenever you put one or more -1/-1 counters on a creature an opponent controls, exile the top card of your library. Until end of turn, you may play that card.
“Whatever doesn’t kill them leaves them weaker.”
2/2
Wall of Scars 1WCreature - Wall [U]
Defender
Whenever Wall of Scars blocks a creature, put a -1/-1 counter on that creature.
0/4
Enchantment [R]
At the beginning of each opponent's upkeep, put a -1/-1 counter on target creature that player controls.
2RR: Each creature with a -1/-1 counter on it deals 1 damage to its controller.
Expelled from their city, the people of Amonkhet faced challenges daily from every aspect of the environment.
Artifact Creature - Construct (U)
When you cast Pain Engine, you may put a -1/-1 counter on target creature an opponent controls.
Pain Engine's power and toughness are each equal to the number of -1/-1 counters among creatures your opponents control.
Where others see suffering, it sees only sustenance.
*/*
Artifact - Equipment [Rare]
Living Weapon (When this Equipment enters the battlefield, create a 0/0 black Germ creature token, then attach this to it.)
Equipped creature gets +1/+1.
When equipped creature dies, put X -1/-1 counters on target creature an opponent controls, where X is the equipped creature's power.
Equip 3
Creature - Scorpion (R)
First strike
When Stingsearer enters the battlefield, put a -1/-1 counter on target creature an opponent controls.
If Stingsearer would deal damage to a creature with a -1/-1 counter or a player who controls a creature with a -1/-1 counter on it, it deals twice that much damage instead.
3/3
Creature - Human Cleric (Rare)
T: You may reveal a Bolas card from your hand. If you do, put a -1/-1 counter on target creature an opponent controls and tap it.
T: Destroy target permanent. Activate this ability only if you control a Bolas planeswalker.
2/2
Creature - Giant Scorpion (Rare)
Menace
Whenever Vicious Androctonus deals combat damage to a player, put a -1/-1 counter on each creature that player controls.
5/3
Club Flamingo Wins: 1!
Creature - Insect Horror (R)
Haste
You may exert Dissolver of Flesh as it attacks. (It won't untap during your next untap step.)
Whenever you exert a creature, you may put a -1/-1 counter on target creature an opponent controls.
3/2
I'm glad we already have a lot of entries, but I also see many of these entries that at best don't fully meet the main challenge and at worst would need to be DQ'ed. Please everyone notice:
the -1/-1 counters have to go exclusively and specifically ONLY on opposing creatures.
If your card is able to do that but can also work on yourself and/or your own creatures, instead of or even in addition to your opponents' ones, such as just putting the -1/-1 counters on "target creature" (with no "opponent controls" part, so it could be their creature, but it could also be yours) or targeting/enchanting a player (any player, not specifically an "opponent", so that it could also be you technically, and no, it does not matter that strategically you'd never enchant yourself with it, you still could potentially) and then referring to them, well, all of that's out of the intent of the main challenge. Also, I included the template for a reason. While "distributing" -1/-1 counters instead of "putting" them might be an acceptable bend (provided the -1/-1 counters can ONLY go on your opponents' creatures) due to how templating works, other variations should only be done where it's strictly necessary for the card to work.
TLDR: Make sure the creature(s) getting the -1/-1 counters can never be your own under any circumstance.
You have been warned. I will not repeat this while the design phase is underway. Everyone that has already posted, please check your entry to see if it conforms to this and make sure that it does by the design deadline. Everyone that has yet to post, please keep this into account when designing your card. Thanks in advance to everyone for your attention and collaboration.
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.)
Enchantment (R)
Creatures opponents control get +3/+3.
At the beginning of your upkeep, put a -1/-1 counter on each creature an opponent controls.
"An enemy filled with fervor can strike like a demon, but that rage caused them to burn out in the end. Master your passions and manipulate those of your enemies, can you will control the tide of war. "
- Tismat, Warrior Monk
Creature - Wurm (R)
When Acidic Sandwurm enters the battlefield, put two -1/-1 counters on target creature an opponent controls.
Whenever a creature an opponent controls an opponent controls dies, you may sacrifice Acidic Sandwurm. If you do, destroy target enchantment, artifact, or nonbasic land.
6/5
Check out my Newborder Peasant Cube here! http://www.cubetutor.com/draft/37467
True Name Mafia (Win),Clan Contest IX Mafia (Win), Bravely Default Mafia (Loss), BOTAS (loss), BfV (Loss), Ace Attourney (loss)
Rules Advisor before they were eradicated
Creature - Cephalid Wizard (R)
At the beginning of your upkeep, you may put a -1/-1 counter on target creature an opponent controls.
T: Gain control of target creature an opponent controls with toughness 1. Remove all -1/-1 counters from it.
His way of treatment is neither quick nor painless.
2/3
Multiple instances of lifelink on the same creature are redundant.
Multiple instances of lifelink on the same creature are redundant.
—Eli Shiffrin, Rules Manager, on a design stacking lifelink instances
Enchantment (U)
Whenever you cast an instant or sorcery spell, put a -1/-1 counter on target creature an opponent controls.
Cardz5000 did not post a card. This means we have one bracket with only three players. As usual in Round 2, the top 2 from each bracket advance to the next round.
BRACKETS
Judge: bravelion83
iphanx
LnGrrrR
Tesco(black)lotus
willows
Judge: StonerOfKruphix
kjsharp
Necarg
netn10
Raptorchan
Judge: Rocco
doomfish
JamBlock
The_Hittite
Judge: Blydden
admirableadmiral
Conntroll
Jimmy Groove
Sub_Silentio
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.)
Creature - Cephalid Wizard (R)
At the beginning of your upkeep, you may put a -1/-1 counter on target creature an opponent controls.
T: Gain control of target creature an opponent controls with toughness 1. Remove all -1/-1 counters from it.
His way of treatment is neither quick nor painless.
2/3
Design -
(2/3) Appeal: Too much setup for Timmy. Johnny wants to break that second ability. Spike is in it for the attrition effect of the first ability, but is open to the incidental value of sometimes stealing creatures.
(3/3) Elegance: Quite nice — very cohesive and concisely-worded. Both abilities are related, but not connected in an obvious way. I like this kind of design.
Development -
(1/3) Viability: Rarity seems OK. It would have too big an impact on limited at uncommon, and it's not wacky enough for mythic. Color-wise, it's like a reverse Biting Tether... But I don't like how effortlessly it spews out -1/-1 counters. Blue doesn't get such free, repeating -1/-1 counter production. (In fact, no color has done upkeep-based, targeted -1/-1 counters, but the first to do it will be black, not blue, as evidenced by Harbinger of Night and Midnight Banshee). Even in the Amonkhet block, where -1/-1 counters are a block theme, it's limited to Jund colors. I get that the second ability is heavily stipulated, but I just can't get over a CMC3 creatures getting a repeatable Control Magic effect, especially at such a tiny activation cost(!)
(2/3) Balance: There are ample ways to break this in constructed formats, especially the eternal ones, using Humility and/or Twiddle effects. Giving the second ability even a tiny mana cost would have mitigated this sufficiently. I don't THINK it's too powerful to be printed into Standard, but it maybe should cost 4 mana?. In limited, it's less of an issue, but in most draft environments, that first ability alone would make this an auto-pick. At rare, I'm not too concerned, but it would be the bane of any draft pod. Casuals like the first ability, and in multiplayer formats there will be three times the potential targets for the second ability. Commander seems like the most appropriate place for this.
Creativity -
(2.5/3) Uniqueness: As mentioned, it's a reversed Biting Tether in creature form, but the result is something that feels like a different card. Taken individually, the first ability is nothing special, and the second ability is clever and engaging. This would be a fun way to do steal effects, even if I have qualms about its execution here.
(1/3) Flavor: The name sounds weird. Kind of bland and ambiguous. Are you referring to the concept of "breaking" someone via interrogation or torture? If so, a less oblique name might have been a better choice. Breakers are also a kind of ocean wave, which seems like it's the intended meaning, given the creature type. Your mechanical flavor is spot-on. It perfectly depicts the turning of an enemy prisoner... Then the flavor text throws it all out the window. Treatments? Wait, is he a doctor or an interrogator? Now I'm not confident about the rest of my flavor critique. In a vacuum, I like the gist of the flavor text, but "way of treatment" really needed a more professional wording.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: I see no issues
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Yup
(2/2) Subchallenges: Blue is not black
Total: 18.5/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Artifact Creature - Construct (U)
When you cast Pain Engine, you may put a -1/-1 counter on target creature an opponent controls.
Pain Engine's power and toughness are each equal to the number of -1/-1 counters among creatures your opponents control.
Where others see suffering, it sees only sustenance.
*/*
Design -
(.5/3) Appeal: Timmy sees a 1/1 for 4, and will promptly ignore this forever. Johnny likes cards like this normally, but investing heavily in a -1/-1 strategy just to be able to reliably make this under- or even fairly-costed is outside the reach of even his enthusiasm for jank. And for once, this is a card Spike and Timmy can wholeheartedly agree on.
(2.5/3) Elegance: The "When you cast [this creature]" clause will always be a bit cumbersome, but I understand why it's here. That aside, the whole card fits together like a precision machine. Very elegant.
Development -
(1.5/3) Viability: Colorless was an odd choice for this card, especially with the "when you cast ~" ability. Flavor-wise, I get it. It's a pain engine. But where the color-pie is concerned, black would have been a better option. Still, it respects the rules and conventional guidelines just fine. No one will be happy to see this in an uncommon slot during draft. This really needed to be common.
(1/3) Balance: Though it's possible for this card to be broken, only the most determined and masochistic Johnnies will ever attempt it. In limited, only decks that already have a critical mass of -1/-1 counter production will consider playing it, and then only reluctantly. For constructed, I can't see a single Standard environment having the density of offensive -1/-1 counter effects needed to make this any better than a vanilla 3/3 for 4 or so. And in any eternal format, EDH included, the payoff wouldn't be nearly worth it.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: Not many artifact creatures have variable stats, and not many constructs dole out -1/-1 counters (only one, in fact). This kind interplay between */* creatures and their ETB abilities is nothing new, but I like how it's implemented here.
(2.5/3) Flavor: Great flavor, though I would have fallen in love with this if it were a scarecrow. The name is evocative, and meshes excellently with the mechanics of the card. Your flavor actively improves my enjoyment of the overall flavor, which is exactly what it should do. My only gripe is that the word "only" is unnecessary here, since you're already contrasting what it sees with what everyone else sees. Use adverbs sparingly; they often just muddy the message.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: I see no issues.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Yup
(2/2) Subchallenges: Colorless isn't black, but this could easily have been a black card with a different creature type. Full points awarded, as the flavor carries it.
Total: 17.5/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Creature - Lizard [R]
Creatures your opponents control with counters on them block each combat if able.
Whenever you put one or more -1/-1 counters on a creature an opponent controls, Patient Monitor gets +1/+1 and gains deathtouch until end of turn.
Most creatures in the Menagerie are meant to test initiates' strength. Others only punish weakness.
2/2
Design -
(2/3) Appeal: Timmy normally likes opponents to NOT block, and the Provoke effect here is too situational to convince him otherwise. Johnny cringes at parasitic strategies, but likes the open-endedness of that first ability. Spike really doesn't like parasitic strategies, but both abilities provide ample opportunities to control combat and out-skill his opponents. 1.5 points total between J and S.
(1.5/3) Elegance: I do quite like the "creatures with counters" clause. Simple, easy to track, doesn't confuse combat decisions too much, very nice. Now, I know it's the whole point of the challenge, but I found it a little jarring going from a cares-about-counters static ability to an ability that triggers on adding -1/-1 counters, with no way for the card itself to add any counters. It's a prime example of parasitic design, which can often cause some confusion as to what the card really wants to do. For the purpose of these contests, where you design stand-alone cards, it's probably best to avoid.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: Green does lizards, green does Provoke, green does -1/-1 counter value, and green does deathtouch... All good, color-wise. "Cares about (any) counters" is a mechanic I'm surprised we haven't seen yet. We have things like Prolifereate and Gilder Bairn, so I see no reason why this effect shouldn't be perfectly printable. Rare definitely seems correct here. Too much going on for an uncommon. Balanced a little differently, it could even be mythic
(2.5/3) Balance: I love this thing in limited. It gets played in every green deck on account of being a bear with benefits (hereto after referred to as "BWB" ), but in some card pools, it will end up being a bear with only incidental benefits. That's not what any player wants from the rare slot. There's no obvious way to break the card in Standard, but it has a certain "build around me" feel to it that guarantees people will at least try. Commander players are fans, as it affects the entire board for just 2 mana the turn it comes down, so when it inevitably gets removed, it doesn't feel too bad. I recognize that it's possible that whatever environment it finds itself in would be capable of exploiting it beyond what's fair or reasonable, but that's not true generally. It's just as likely to end up a bulk rare after the EDH players nab their foil copies.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: As mentioned, the "cares about counters" clause is interesting and, frankly, overdue. On the other hand, the second ability comes off like it was drawn out of a "-1/-1 counter" hat.
(2.5/3) Flavor: The name and creature type fit the mechanics very, very well. Opportunistic little reptile! Oddly enough, same as JamBlock's entry, the word "only" in the flavor text is extraneous, for a similar reason. In this case, the flavor text suffers a bit more for it, so docking half a point. Besides that, everything meshes just fine.
Polish -
(2.5/3) Quality: In the flavor text, the apostrophe should follow the final S in "initiates'".
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Yup
(2/2) Subchallenges: Green is not black.
Total: 20/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
doomfish - 18.5
JamBlock - 17.5
(1.5/3) Appeal: Timmy likes this card quite a lot; it definitely feels like “scalding sands”. With other -1/-1 counters, the effect could potentially be huge!
Johnny agrees with Timmy; more -1/-1 counters will mean a bigger effect with this card, as well.
Spike is simply bored by this card. The second effect is too weak for spreading out the counters strategically to have any deeper meaning; it is a mana sink at best. Therefore, she defaults to the simplistic ‘nullify their best creature’ strategy that comes with cumulative -1/-1 counters.
(2.5/3) Elegance: A lot of -1/-1 counters could lead to a little arithmetic, but nothing too terribly inelegant.
The main woe would be that, with the activated ability, any creatures you control with -1/-1 counters will also deal damage to you as well. This inelegance reminds me of the shroud versus hexproof problem, which was a problem that became so rampant that Wizards of the Coast changed shroud into hexproof because of it.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: This is definitely red and is definitely a rare. Excellent!
(2/3) Balance: I believe that while the initial cost of this card is quite fine, the second ability is just simply too weak. Charitably, it can be used as a mana sink for those last points of burn damage. Uncharitably, it is trinket text that takes away from the rest of the enchantment altogether, development-wise.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: The first effect is far from being particularly unique, but the second effect definitely comes to help and save the day in this regard.
(2.5/3) Flavor: The flavor is pretty great; I just have one notable quibble. The main city of Amonkhet is called ‘Naktamun’, and it would make a lot more sense to reference Naktamun by name, at least in my honest opinion. Otherwise, the name is great, and the mechanics work together with the intended flavor nicely.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Perfect!
(2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge met!
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges met!
Total: 20.5/25
Final thought: Admirable work, admiral!
(2/3) Appeal: First off, Tammy does not like this card; sacrificing her own creatures is not for her.
Jenny likes this card quite a bit; other ways of having her opponent’s creatures die allow her to repeat this effect until the opponent’s board is clear for whatever she wants to do.
Spike surely loves this card. It is very skill-intensive, and a deck with it should keep it in mind throughout the rest of the deck building process, let alone the game. Once it is on the battlefield, it has much in the way of nuance. If used poorly, this card can lose its controller the game. On the other hand, if used well, this card is a game winner.
(3/3) Elegance: I spot nothing here that would constitute an inelegance.
Development -
(1/3) Viability: Rare is likely the correct rarity for this card. Unfortunately, this rest of this card suffers from major viability problems. This card is useless outside of black, yet it is a colorless artifact. If it were a black enchantment, that viability problem would clear right up. Just as well, repeatable kill in the form of an engine like this generally quite unfun, especially for only three mana. 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?
(0/3) Balance: If not for being significantly under-costed, this card is incredibly oppressive and unfun to play against; it is still too strong without the first line of rules text, but tacking that on as well only pushes this card over the edge into what I would call a broken card.
Consider a multiplayer game with multiple opponents, and this card only gets worse in that regard. This card does not even have to kill anything to be effective at worst; it is an overly potent combo piece at best. Plus, both abilities are at instant speed!
Maybe a singular -1/-1 counter would have worked out better; I am honestly not sure.
Creativity -
(1/3) Uniqueness: Nothing that this card does is particularly unique, and there have been variants of this kind of card in the past. One of my personal favorites is an old card from Fifth Dawn of the first Mirrodin block called Blasting Station.
(0.5/3) Flavor: Malice is not something that I would call recyclable, so I fail to see the flavorful connection there. I suppose that it makes some sense that this machine can untap repeatedly. But, why only black creatures; why not any creature? Overall, I do not find the flavor of this card to be particularly professional.
The abbreviation in the flavor text is what I could call cute, though.
Polish -
(1.5/3) Quality: The second line of rules text possesses a capitalization error; “sacrifice” should be capitalized (minus half a point).
The other pair of quality errors are in the flavor text. Firstly, the colon “:” only ever goes after a complete sentence; “The MRM” is not a complete sentence without a predicate, for it is only a subject (minus half a point). Secondly, the comma after “underlings” and before “for” falsely hints that the latter is a conjunction rather than a preposition in this instance (minus half a point).
(2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge met!
(1.5/2) Subchallenges: Subchallenge 1 met!
As for Subchallenge 2, this card may not have a black color identity, but it is only playable if you control black creatures. Since it is almost completely benign without black creatures (outside of some shenanigan like artifact animation which I cannot say would be not worthwhile here), I cannot in good conscience award the full point to this card regarding the second subchallenge. It may have followed the letter of the subchallenge, but I heavily doubt that it followed the spirit of it.
Total: 12.5/25
Final thoughts: Trying to be clever to get that second subchallenge point is not worth breaking the color pie over. Nonetheless, I do sincerely hope that you participate in another MCC in the future!
(1.5/3) Appeal: Simply put, Timmy loves this card because it is a very big and memorable effect.
Johnny likes this card because quite a few shenanigans are possible with it. As an example, he could play a bunch of defenders and stall the board forever and ever and ever...
Spike hates this card; not only can it be a very fast way to lose a game of Magic, but it requires absolutely no skill to use. Either it sometimes works, or it crashes and burns miserably.
(3/3) Elegance: I spot no inelegances here, but see Quality.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: This card is most certainly a Rare. I am not entirely sure if this card is solely Red, but I am not sure what other color could go with it if it were to be multicolor.
There is a potential viability concern with Wizards of the Coast ever printing a card anything like this, but I suppose that there is a world were such could happen.
(0/3) Balance: There is no world where this card is balanced. It is either very broken beyond belief, or absolutely and completely useless to the point of losing a game almost all on its own. Unfortunately, the lack of fairness within this card is almost the very definition of imbalance.
Notably, if the second ability had possessed a cost of some kind (likely a mana cost), this balance score would have gone up significantly.
Creativity -
(2.5/3) Uniqueness: You may think that a card that is merely a mass Consuming Fervor would not earn almost full points for this criterion. However, I cannot find a single card that buffs all an opponent’s creatures with a continuous +N/+N bonus. The closest cards that come to mind affect all players, such as Archangel of Strife or Crescendo of War. Therefore, I am basically obligated to award this card almost full uniqueness points.
(2/3) Flavor: The flavor of this card is great right up until the second half of the second sentence of the flavor text, which suffers from quality errors that significantly detract from the rest of this card’s flavor.
Polish -
(1/3) Quality: The first line of rules text is missing the word ‘your’ in-between “creatures” and “opponents” (minus half a point).
The flavor text has more quality errors: “can you will control the tide of war” is a bit of a nonsense clause (minus half a point). There are two unnecessary spaces in the flavor text that are both out of place, one after each sentence of the flavor text (minus half a point). Lastly, there should not be a space between the dash (which should be a long dash ‘—‘) and the name “Tismat” (minus half a point).
(2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge met!
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges met!
Total: 17/25
Final thought: To be fair, I found that this card had a surprising amount of potential for budding from such a niche idea.
(1.5/3) Appeal: All the player psychographics like this card because of the second line of rules text, which can lead to quite a big, rewarding, and tactical effect if more than four -1/-1 counters somehow end up on the creature (which is not hard to do in the Amonkhet block).
(2/3) Elegance: The primary inelegance of this card is that its total text makes up a total of nine lines, which is too many for most Magic cards, let alone an Uncommon.
Development -
(2/3) Viability: This card is obviously a Black card trying to masquerade with a Green mana cost in order to pass the second subchallenge. My apologies.
The rarity of Uncommon is appropriate for this card.
(3/3) Balance: This card is actually just Soulstinger’s cousin once-removed. For the record, Soulstinger was a completely fine card. Little else needs to be mentioned as a result.
Creativity -
(1/3) Uniqueness: The first line of rules text would have been unique if not for Amonkhet. Soulstinger, Ornery Kudu, and so forth serve as enough precedent to prevent this card from being unique. The only reason that the score for this criterion is not a mere half a point is because of the counters being distributed among multiple targets, which is vaguely unique enough.
(1/3) Flavor: The name of this card is alright; it does its job and nothing more. The flavor and the mechanics of this card mesh well enough. However, the flavor text is unprofessional; this quote that has been credited to Hapatra is not at all within her character as a person. With that said, I find the pun of this flavor text to be cringe-inducing, and that is not a good feeling for the flavor of a Magic card.
Polish -
(1/3) Quality: These quality errors are all in regards to this card’s flavor text.
Firstly, the flavor text should be before the power and toughness, not after it (minus half a point). Secondly, the word “croak” should not be bolded or italicized to express emphasis (see cards with emphasized words within their flavor text such as Sizzle, minus half a point). Thirdly, the accreditation for the quotation should have its own third line of flavor text (minus half a point). Fourthly, there should be a no space between the dash (which should be a long dash ‘—‘) and the name “Hapatra” (minus half a point).
(1.5/2) Main Challenge: According to this month’s host, bravelion83, this card fails to meet the main challenge in its entirety.
However, I believe that your card otherwise meets the full spirit of the main challenge, disregarding the exact letter of it (therefore it is an acceptable bend). As a result, I have decided that your card is not subject to disqualification. This was not an easy decision.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges met!
Total: 15/25
Final thought: What ultimately brought down this card was not the bending with respect to the main challenge (however risky). The downfall of this card can be attributed to a lack of serious flavor and serious proofreading. Nevertheless, I do hope that you continue to participate in the MCC during the months to come in the future!
Jimmy Groove – 17
Sub_Silentio – 15
Conntroll – 12.5
If your username has been bolded here, congratulations are in order — you have qualified for Round 3 of the July MCC! Best of luck!
If your username has not been bolded here, there is always next month. Thank you for competing; best of luck next month!
Stingsearer 3R
Creature - Scorpion (R)
First strike
When Stingsearer enters the battlefield, put a -1/-1 counter on target creature an opponent controls.
If Stingsearer would deal damage to a creature with a -1/-1 counter or a player who controls a creature with a -1/-1 counter on it, it deals twice that much damage instead.
3/3
(2.5/3) Appeal - Timmy loves this. Johnny could probably use this somehow, even if the damage doubling ability being limited to this creature might be a bit limiting to him. Spike also likes this.
(2/3) Elegance - Wordy, but still easy enough to understand. The wording of the last ability may be a bit convoluted but it's still quite easy to follow.
Development
(2.5/3) Viability - We know red is allowed to put -1/-1 counters anywhere it would normally deal damage in blocks that use -1/-1 counters. That's why Scar is a black-red hybrid card. Dealing direct damage to creatures and doubling damage are both things that red can certainly do, so no problem with using -1/-1 counters instead of traditional damage to do that. It just feels a bit strange and would probably work better as a black-red gold card, but it's still acceptable. I agree with this being rare.
(2.5/3) Balance - This looks definitely playable in limited. A Hill Giant used to be the base for a limited playable creature at that mana cost, but I'm not sure that's the case anymore. Anyway, this has three additional upsides which certainly make this playable in limited without any doubt. Maybe in constructed (Standard) too? It might be, but I'm not sure. Maybe monored players could try this as the top of the curve: the potential for double damage should look quite appealing to them. I'm not sure about other decks though. I see no particular problem in casual or multiplayer.
Creativity
(2/3) Uniqueness - Just another twist on the classic Furnace of Rath effect, even if an original one indeed. I can't remember other cards with a similar wording before (the "a creature with a counter or a player who controls such creature" part).
(2.5/3) Flavor - The name is fine and fits the mechanics well, but its composition reminded me immediately of Stingscourger, even though the meaning of the verbs to scourge and to sear is different and there is also no mechanical relation between the two cards besides both being red. That's just a minor point though. No flavor text. The text box is already full with the rules text, but according to MSE one or maybe two lines of flavor text could have fit by shrinking the font size just a little bit. Anyway, I agree that if it were printed for real, this card would have no flavor text, so it's not a big problem. Some would say it's not a problem at all, and one could argue that's indeed the case. Anyway, that's not an argument I'm interested in making right now, also because no cards in my bracket have flavor text this round, so it's just a matter of determining whether it was the right thing to do or not. In your case, it was.
Polish
(2/3) Quality - It should be "...-1/-1 counter on it or a player..." (-0.5). Ironically, you got the second instance right. Also, it should be "...deals twice that much damage to that creature or player instead" (-0.5). As is, the replacement effect doesn't technically know what to deal damage to, even if the intent is clear.
(2/2) Main Challenge - Good.
(2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
Total: 20/25
Vicious Androctonus3BB
Creature - Giant Scorpion (Rare)
Menace
Whenever Vicious Androctonus deals combat damage to a player, put a -1/-1 counter on each creature that player controls.
5/3
Design
(2/3) Appeal - Timmy really likes this card. I don't know how Johnny could use this. Spike likes a hard-to-block threat that weakens opposing creatures en masse.
(3/3) Elegance - All good here.
Development
(3/3) Viability - No problems with the color pie, rarity, or rules.
(2.5/3) Balance - The mana cost couldn't be lower realistically. This is a must play if you're in black in limited. I don't think it will be this that pushes you into black if you're not already in it though as it's not splashable. All this unless it's your first pick of course, which it very well might. In constructed, this might see some Standard play as a finisher in some control deck, even if there probably will be better options for that in the format. The choice of which player to hit with this looks interesting in multiplayer.
Creativity
(0.5/3) Uniqueness - Literally nothing new but the overall combination of effects. I'm sorry.
(2/3) Flavor - I really like the name being a reference to a real kind of desert scorpion. Not only it makes a lot of sense with the mechanics and this card being set on Amonkhet, but it's also one of those occasions where a Magic card name can teach you something, and I love that. I've read of people who have learned obscure words just by playing Magic and then got advantage of it at school or at work. Another thing I really like in this card is the creature types being Giant Scorpion, just like another real card that is only a Giant by name and not by creature type. In cases like that, the creature is usually actually given the type. It's strange seeing the Giant subtype here but not there. Anyway, if one of those is wrong, it's the real card in my opinion and not yours. No flavor text even though there is plenty of room for it on this card. I still want to prize everything else, but I have to keep that into account. It's not a problem if there is no flavor text on the card because it doesn't fit, but if it fits (like in this case) I do expect it, even just a single line.
Polish
(2.5/3) Quality - A space is missing between the name and mana cost (-0.5).
(1.5/2) Main Challenge - Nowhere it's specified that the player must be the opponent. That was kind of the point of both the required template and my warning post. Still, there is no reasonable situation I can come up with when in this specific case the player is not your opponent. You can never attack yourself after all. This is a typical case where the letter of the law is not technically satisfied even though the spirit certainly is. The former is the reason why I'm deducting points here but the latter is the reason why the deduction is the smallest it can be (half a point).
(1/2) Subchallenges - It's a permanent but it's black.
Total: 18/25
Contagion Husk 3
Artifact - Equipment [Rare]
Living Weapon (When this Equipment enters the battlefield, create a 0/0 black Germ creature token, then attach this to it.)
Equipped creature gets +1/+1.
When equipped creature dies, put X -1/-1 counters on target creature an opponent controls, where X is the equipped creature's power.
Equip 3
Design
(1.5/3) Appeal - I think Timmy doesn't care about this. Johnny could use the death trigger with a sacrifice engine or something like that. Spike likes the effect but thinks the costs are a bit too high, especially the equip one.
(2.5/3) Elegance - A bit wordy, but otherwise fine.
Development
(2.5/3) Viability - Giving all colors easy access to -1/-1 counters can be a little bend, but it's still definitely acceptable. It's not the first time that living weapon cards are bends. I definitely agree with the proposed rarity.
(1.5/3) Balance - As I've already mentioned, the costs seem a bit on the safe side, but I can't really blame you for that. There is already a kind of self-balancing factor in that the P/T bonus makes the creature harder to kill, at least in combat, which makes the "dies" ability harder to trigger. So I'm not sure the extra safeness was needed. It would be an interesting card to playtest, that's for sure. It looks playable in limited provided that you have room for non-removal, non-combat-trick, noncreature spells, which is not always the case. Sometimes you will have to leave this out. I can't see this in constructed unless some combo involving the trigger arises. I see no problems in casual or multiplayer.
Creativity
(1.5/3) Uniqueness - No existing cards with living weapon have a death trigger (I checked Gatherer for all existing cards with living weapon), so at least that's new. It's not exactly a groundbreaking innovation though.
(2.5/3) Flavor - The name is fine, even if it immediately reminded me of Contagion Engine and Contagion Clasp. I would have really liked it if this card was a common to complete that vertical cycle, but unfortunately that's not the case. Still, the name fits the card concept well enough. No flavor text, but not a big problem because it wouldn't fit in the frame without significantly shrinking the font size, according to MSE. Like I said for iphanx's card, some would say it's not a problem at all, and one could argue that's indeed the case. Anyway, that's not an argument I'm interested in making right now, also because no cards in my bracket have flavor text this round, so it's just a matter of determining whether it was the right thing to do or not. In your case, it was.
Polish
(2/3) Quality - The word "weapon" in "living weapon" should not be capitalized. When a keyword is made up of multiple words, only the first one is capitalized and only if the keyword is at the beginning of the line. The following ones are never capitalized (-1 for very well known fact, it's like writing "First Strike" after all, and it's one of the most blatant mistakes one can make in templating).
(2/2) Main Challenge - Good.
(2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
Total: 18/25
Stinging Volley 2R
Enchantment (U)
Whenever you cast an instant or sorcery spell, put a -1/-1 counter on target creature an opponent controls.
Design
(2/3) Appeal - Timmy isn't very interested in this card, but he can get behind it by pairing it with big spells: play a big spell and get rewarded for it. Johnny can definitely use the trigger with some recursion engine or things like that. Spike likes putting a -1/-1 as a bonus for each instant or sorcery he plays, but he's a bit turned down by a card that does only that.
(3/3) Elegance - Perfect in this regard.
Development
(3/3) Viability - We know red is allowed to put -1/-1 counters anywhere it would normally deal damage in blocks that use -1/-1 counters. That's why Scar is a black-red hybrid card. Dealing direct damage to creatures is a thing that red can certainly do, so no problem with using -1/-1 counters instead of traditional damage to do that. Interestingly, the trigger being on instants or sorceries being cast makes this feel better in red than it would do in black, because red interacts much more with instants and sorceries than black. In red, the trigger is at home and the effect acceptable. In black, the effect would be at home but the trigger would really feel wrong. So, in the end, I agree with this being a red card. No problems with rarity or game rules either.
(2.5/3) Balance - The mana cost might look a bit high, but as the trigger is repeatable, better safe than sorry. I think this is playable in limited, especially in some archetype like the classic "UR spells", but I'd be very surprised if this card saw any kind of competitive constructed play. It's not a big problem though, not every card can or should be a constructed staple. I see no problems in casual or multiplayer.
Creativity
(0.5/3) Uniqueness - Literally nothing new but the overall combination of effects. I'm sorry.
(2/3) Flavor - The name is fine, even if it reminds me of Shard Volley, which is a completely different card even if it's still red. No flavor text even though there is plenty of room for it on this card, and I have to keep that into account. It's not a problem if there is no flavor text on the card because it doesn't fit, but if it fits (like in this case) I do expect it, even just a single line.
Polish
(3/3) Quality - All good.
(2/2) Main Challenge - Good.
(2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
Total: 20/25
iphanx: 20
willows: 20
Tesco(black)lotus: 18
LnGrrrR: 18
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.)