The tyrant gazes from his lofty perch, always content to look down upon his so-called 'subjects' while his slave-drivers force them to perform their endless toiling. Little does he realize, however, that no army, earthly or otherwise, can suppress the human desire for freedom forever. Fear will initially rob a man of courage, but the tough times that the tyrant will inevitably create will steel his offspring, and they too will produce children of great mettle. And when a man is of vast strength, his will, too, will grow. We will be swift with our preparations. The tyrant does not know it now, but his time is at its end. We will be triumphant. The fire rises.
Main Challenge: Design a card that creates two or more creature permanents for you.
Subchallenge 1: Your card does not create creature tokens. Subchallenge 2: Your card isn't a creature and has a converted mana cost of 4 or less.
Player deadline: May 4th, 23:59 PM
Judge deadline: May 7th, 23:59 PM
A card that "creates" creatures must put creates into play or animates noncreature permanents into creatures.
Design Appeal (X/3): Do the different player psychographics (Timmy/Johhny/Spike) have a use for the card? Does it create or fit into a deck/archetype? Elegance (X/3): Are the concepts of the card easily understood at a glance? Do all the flavor and mechanics combined as a whole make sense?
Development Viability (X/3): 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? Balance (X/3): 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 fun play experiences?
Creativity Uniqueness (X/3): 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”? Flavor (X/3): 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 Quality (X/3): Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating. Main Challenge (X/2): Points deducted if the card does not meet the main challenge or only partially meets the main challenge. Sub Challenges (X/2): One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Design Appeal (2/3): This is a johnny card for sure. Spike doesn't want to spend turn 3 and turn 4 to get a Polymorph. Timmy might be interested if he can gurantee to get a fatty. Elegance (2/3): Mechanically this is fine, but this makes no sense flavor-wise. Why is a wizard turning into something else? Why is a creature called a 'pod'? You really needed some flavor text and a better name.
Development Viability (3/3): This is fine. Balance (1.5/3): This body is barely relevant if you don't morph it, and if you do morph it's an expensive instant speed polymorph, even if it can steal your opponent's cards. I think the morph cost could have been 1U.
Creativity Uniqueness (1/3): Stealing creatures is new, but otherwise this doesn't do much else that hasn't been done before. Flavor (1/3): The flavor is confusing and there isn't any flavor text, despite there being plenty of room for some.
Polish Quality (3/3): Main Challenge (1/2): Because you have to sacrifice a creature in order to get the second, this doesn't fit the spirit of the challenge. Sub Challenges (2/2):
Total: 14.5/25
Design Appeal (2/3): This is a potential combo piece for johnny and there's a good amount of value for spike as a super-Scout's Warning. Timmy doesn't care. Elegance (3/3): This is good.
Development Viability (2/3): This is a rare, if Dramatic Entrance, Scout's Warning, and Collected Company are anything to go by. Balance (3/3): This is fine. If anything, you could have made it more interesting and powerful by letting the player draw a card first, then put creatures into play.
Creativity Uniqueness (2/3): Very similar to Collected Company, but different enough in certain ways. Flavor (3/3): Good name and better flavor text.
Polish Quality (2/3): It should be "You may put any number of creature cards with total converted mana cost 4 or less from your hand onto the battlefield." Main Challenge (2/2): Sub Challenges (2/2):
Total: 21/25
Design Appeal (2/3): This is a Johnny and Spike card. Elegance (2.5/3): This should probably let you get 0-drops as well, but otherwise it's elegant.
Development Viability (3/3): White and rare are good. Multikicker could be used instead of xx. Balance (1.5/3): This is pretty weak. For 4 mana you get an anthem for your 1 drops and a 1 drop out of your deck, and for 6 or more mana this card is far too weak when compared to other cards at that cost. In limited this will be bad because you have to run a bunch of 1-drops to enable it, which you don't want to do and typically aren't able to do. In standard this might be good enough. I think that xWWW would have been a better costing for this card, as at that point it's not easy to cast but the reward is very much there.
Creativity Uniqueness (2/3):Marshal's Anthem does a lot of similar things to this card. Flavor (2.5/3): The flavor doesn't stand out, but it isn't bad either.
Polish Quality (3/3): Main Challenge (2/2): Sub Challenges (2/2):
Total: 20.5/25
Design Appeal (1/3): This is too expensive for Spike. Johnny likes it. Timmy doesn't. Elegance (1.5/3): This card is fairly convoluted, and the fact that you use two variables doesn't help.
Development Viability (2/3): This would make more sense as a black (or potentially white) enchantment. Reanimation isn't really a thing artifacts typically do. Balance (1.5/3): The card scales poorly with X; if you make X too high, there's a chance that you can end up with one or two counters that you can't remove because a creature at that cost doesn't die before the game ends. And if you're setting the card to a low enough value that you just steal one creature, you're overpaying for an Unhallowed Pact. Additionally, the fact that this card makes you go through some hoops to get value out of your X-spell isn't ideal.
Creativity Uniqueness (3/3): Flavor (3/3): The mechanics explain the flavor well enough.
Polish Quality (3/3): Main Challenge (1/2): Because of how conditional the method by which your card creates two creatures is, I don't feel like I can award you full points in this area. Sub Challenges (2/2):
Total: 17/25
Design Appeal (2/3): Johnny wants to combo this and timmy wants to use this to play two of his fatties. Spike doesn't want to wait five turns to get a mana discount. Elegance (3/3):
Development Viability (3/3): This fits the bill. Balance (1.5/3): This is too slow for what it does. While it does let you cheat two creatures into play, waiting five turns is a huge amount of time after you've already cast a four mana spell. Three counters would have been a better number.
Creativity Uniqueness (1.5/3): This is sort of a Tooth and Nail with suspend. Flavor (2/3): The flavor is good, even if the flavor text is mediocre.
Polish Quality (2/3): Krosan should be capitalized. It's "Put up to two creature cards..." Main Challenge (2/2): Sub Challenges (2/2):
Total: 19/25
Design Appeal (2/3): Johnny and Spike like this. Timmy isn't. Elegance (3/3): It's clean and easy.
Development Viability (2/3): This is probably an uncommon; it's not complex and it isn't that powerful. This is a great example of red card advantage, however. Balance (3/3): This is really well balanced. It's got a chance of being strong card advantage, yet if it isn't it's a Hellspark Elemental-type card, which is what red does.
Creativity Uniqueness (3/3): This feels very red, yet very new. Flavor (3/3): The name isn't great, but the rest of the card is.
Polish Quality (2/3): It should be "At the beginning of each end step..." Main Challenge (2/2): Sub Challenges (2/2):
Total: 22/25
Design Appeal (3/3): Everyone likes something here. Elegance (3/3): This isn't hard to understand.
Development Viability (3/3): Green and mythic fit. Balance (-5/3): This card is so egregiously overpowered that I'm going to take away points in this area. Let me give you an idea of how ridiculous this card is: In legacy, one of the more powerful decks in that format revolves around using the card Show and Tell to put Emrakul, the Aeons Torn into play. That card requires that you draw emrakul, and also allows your opponent to put a card into play for free as well. Not only is your card one-sided, but it also lets you get the card from your deck, and lets you get two creature cards. Imagine that you put this in a deck with only the creature cards Urabrask the Hidden and Emrakul the Aeons Torn. You will literally win the game on the spot whenever you cast this card in any format. The card that replicates this effect the closest is an entwined Tooth and Nail, and that card costs nine mana. Nine mana. Another comparable card is Oath of Druids. Oath requires that you control fewer creatures, makes you wait until your upkeep to get the trigger, and only gets one creature at a time. In spite of being worse than your card in three separate ways, Oath is a powerful strategy in vintage, where it's played alongside the most powerful cards ever printed. Your card breaks so many rules and boundaries of Magic that giving it a balance score of 0/3 would not be enough to emphasize how overpowered this card is. This card would literally have to be banned in every format and restricted in vintage if it were to be ever printed.
As an aside, you should probably put the cards on the bottom of the library in a random order.
Creativity Uniqueness (0/3): This card is just two triggers of Oath of Druids, minus the restrictions. Flavor (3/3): The name and flavor text are very good.
Polish Quality (3/3): Main Challenge (2/2): Sub Challenges (2/2):
Total: 15/25
Design Appeal (3/3): Johnny wants to abuse this, Timmy loves the big effect, and Spike likes the immense value in addition to the card selection. Elegance (3/3): It's easy to understand.
Development Viability (3/3): This feels more green than blue, but otherwise is perfect. Balance (3/3): This is very powerful, but as with any other X-spell, requires a lot of mana. This card in particular feels very fair, yet very good.
Creativity Uniqueness (2.5/3): It's like a super-Write into Being. Flavor (2/3): The name and mechanics explain the flavor, but you had a lot of space for some flavor text.
Polish Quality (3/3): Main Challenge (2/2): Sub Challenges (2/2):
Development Viability (1.5/3): This should absolutely be a mythic rare. Balance (1/3): This is really, really powerful. Rise of the Dark Realms costs nine mana, and while your card only reanimates things from your graveyard, it's still incredibly powerful, especially given how it also fills up your graveyard. The activated ability should only be usable at sorcery speed, and should have a higher mana cost or some other kind of cost associated with it, as six mana is just too cheap.
Creativity Uniqueness (1/3): The parts aren't all that new. Flavor (1.5/3): This doesn't really feel like a storm to me, and the flavor doesn't help.
Polish Quality (1.5/3): It should be "Return each creature card...", and the S in Sacrifice should be capitalized. Main Challenge (1/2): Because it doesn't give you creatures upon resolution, I feel it misses the spirit of the challenge somewhat. Sub Challenges (2/2):
Polymorph Pod1U
Creature - Wizard Mutant (R)
Morph 3U
When Polymorph Pod is turned face up, sacrifice it, then reveal cards from the top of target player's library until he or she reveals a creature card. Put that card onto the battlefield under your control, then put all other cards revealed this way into their owner's graveyard.
1/3
Out of the Woodwork2WG
Instant (U)
Put any number of creature cards with a total converted mana cost four or less from your hand onto the battlefield.
Draw a card. When the Conclave is in danger, reinforcements arrive in a flash.
Aggressive RecruitmentxRR
Sorcery (R)
As an additional cost to cast Aggressive Recruitment, sacrifice X Creatures.
Gain control of X target creatures until end of turn. Untap those creatures. Those creatures gain haste until end of turn.
It would not. Your card must create two creatures; you can't steal them from the battlefield.
Uprising of the MeekXXWW
Enchantment (R)
When Uprising of the Meek enters the battlefield, search your library for up to X creature cards with converted mana cost 1 and put them onto the battlefield, then shuffle your library.
Creatures you control with converted mana cost 1 get +1/+1.
Rebellion of the DowntroddenXXRRR
Enchantment (R)
When Rebellion of the Downtrodden enters the battlefield, search your library for up to X creature cards with converted mana cost 1 or less and put them onto the battlefield, then shuffle your library.
As long as you control three or more creatures, creatures you control with converted mana cost 1 or less get +1/+0 and have haste.
Thriving Forces2GG
Enchantment (r)
At the beginning of your upkeep, put a vitality counter on Thriving forces.
When Thriving Forces has five of more vitality counters on it, sacrifice it. If you do, put two creature cards from your hand onto the battlefield. In the krosan forest, terrible monters are as plentiful as trees.
Blazing Manifestation1RR
Sorcery (Rare)
Manifest the top two cards of your library. They gain haste and "At the end of turn, if this creature is face down, exile it." In the hands of the Temur, Ugin's fire delivers life as well as death.
Wildspeaker's Howl1GG
Sorcery (M)
Reveal cards from the top of your library until you reveal two creature cards. Put those cards onto the battlefield. Put all other cards revealed this way on the bottom of your library in any order. "Garruk had planned for such treachery, and called a wurm that devoured the man. He took his helm and wandered back into the wilds."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MCC February 2014 - 2nd Round (11th-20th)
MCC March 2014 - 1st Round (17th-24th)
MCC April 2014 - 1st Round (17th-32nd)
MCC May 2014 - 1st Round (17th-32nd)
MCC June 2014 - Judge
MCC July 2014 - Host
MCC August 2014 - 1st Round (17th-31st)
MCC August 2015 - 1st Round (21st-36th)
MCC September 2015 - 1st Round (22nd-39th)
MCC October 2015 - 1st Round (13th-20th)
CCL March 2014 - Score: 71.4/300 (18th)
CCL May 2014 - Score: 29/36 (10th)
CCL June 2014 - Score: 86/150 (10th)
CCL July 2014 - Score:36/50 (6th T)
CCL August 2015 - Score: 14 (5th T)
CCL September 2015 - Score: 3 (5th)
CCL October 2015 - Host
DCC September 2015 - Score: 30 (9th)
DCC October 2015 - Score: 46 (8th-T)
Primordial RousingXGUU
Sorcery [M]
Look at the top X cards of your library. Manifest any number of those cards, then put the rest on the top or bottom of your library in any order.
By the way, @admirableadmiral: congratulations for your April MCC victory!
Judging is final.
In judging the main challenge, I considered it as asking for a spell that always immediately creates exactly two or more creatures (and never just one or zero) as it resolves. That was the spirit of the main challenge and its intended difficulty as I interpreted it. For an example of a custom card that satisfies it completely, see my judge card.
Check out "The Lion's Lair", the article series where I specifically talk about custom card design with the intent to help you get better at it. The article index is always updated with the latest content.
Note - When I say "#N in MOQX", it means: this is the mistake number N in my "Mark of Quality, part X" article.
Challenges: what counts is always the letter of the law.
Quality: half a point deducted for any error in templating, wording, spelling, or grammar, no matter how little they may be; a whole point for particularly serious errors.
No complaints unless I got something objectively wrong.
Double BlossomXBG
Sorcery (R)
Search your graveyard, hand and/or library for two creature cards with total converted mana cost X or less and put them onto the battlefield tapped. If you search your library this way, shuffle it. Some plants grow sprouts always in pairs.
This card will always create two creatures no matter what. It requires to always find two creatures, because it doesn't say "up to", even though it poses limitations on the creatures it creates. If you have two creatures in the mentioned zones, you're forced to get them. If you've been milled or something and you only have one card in your library (so it's not possible that you have two creatures in the library), you will have to get the creatures out of your graveyard (reason why the card is partially black) or hand. The only possible way for this to not always create two creatures is if you're playing it in a creatureless deck. But then why are you playing a card that lets you search for creatures in a creatureless deck? You must be doing something wrong!
Return the Fallen 2WB
Instant (R)
Return up to two target creature cards with converted mana cost 2 or less from your graveyard to the battlefield. "Rise. Your services are yet required."
-Tel'Al, Orzhov Pontifex
Design Appeal (1.5/3) - Timmy doesn't care, he'd rather like to reanimate his huge monsters. Johnny loves this card, he can use it as part of a recurring engine or something like that. Spike likes this if the creatures this can target are valuable ones, like utility creatures. Elegance (3/3) - This card is very short and easily understandable, so it results very elegant. Also, it totally makes sense as a whole.
Development Viability (3/3) - Black and white can both reanimate creatures: black every one, while white usually only small ones. This means that this card fits perfectly in the color pie. Being able to reanimate two creatures, even if small ones, at instant speed, I can see this being rare. Balance (2/3) - The cost looks reasonable: I'd say it's too low given this is an instant, but then this is very limited in its targets. I'm not sure I'd play this in my limited deck, as I don't think I will have room among creatures, removal, and combat tricks. This is more of a constructed card, even though the creatures you'd usually like to reanimate cost more than two mana. This can still be useful though with some utility creatures. It's also reanimation at instant speed, which is never to be undervalued. I see no problem in casual and multiplayer formats, nor I see this card creating unfun experiences.
Creativity Uniqueness (0.5/3) - The effect is all but original. We've seen a lot of variations on reanimation effects, just not this specific one. Flavor (3/3) - Name, flavor text, and card concept are all good here. I particularly appreciate the use of the word "Return" in both the name and the rules text. It makes the card feel more of a whole.
Polish Quality (3/3) - I see no problem here. I just recommend formatting cards as specified in the CCC forum rules. In this case, that means bolding the card name. As usual with this kind of remarks, I'm not deducting points for this. Main Challenge (1.5/2) - This puts two creatures on the battlefield as a spell's effect, but only as long as you have two creatures cards in your graveyard that satisfy the targeting requirement. It's still not guaranteed to always create exactly two creatures though, both because of the "up to" and because of the targeting requirement.This goes a little against the spirit of the main challenge, which asked for a card able to always create two creatures no matter what. Sub Challenges (2/2) - Both met.
Return X target cards with different card
types from your graveyard to the battlefield
as 2/1 green elemental creatures with 'When
this creature dies, return it to your hand.'
instead of their other abilities.
Exile Rites of Awakening.
Design Appeal (1/3) - Timmy doesn't care. Johnny loves this for so many reasons. He loves to try to break and win with cards everyone else dismisses. Spike sees this as a too conditional Disentomb. Elegance (0/3) - This is all but elegant. Wordy, complicated, and with nonstandard templates. It also takes some time to mentally process what the effect exactly does.
Development Viability (2.5/3) - This card has a little from all of it colors: black reanimates, blue changes the creatures' stats and returns them from the battlefield to hand, but the end result (take a card from your graveyard and later return it to your hand) can be green, in addition to making the creatures green Elementals. Rarity is acceptable, even though this card is so complex that I could see it being printed at mythic for that reason alone. Balance (1/3) - There are some potential problems here. Even though when you animate a card without saying "in addition to its other types" the card loses all the previous types, if you use it on an instant or sorcery card you will end up with a card that can technically stay on the battlefield, because it's no longer an instant or sorcery anymore, but that will physically look like it's an instant or sorcery card on the battlefield. You can't even put it face down to clarify it lost its other types, because a face-down card is defined as a colorless 2/2 creature, and it is not. Are we sure all players, especially new and less experienced ones, will understand this? I am not. Also, I see no need for the double green in the mana cost. Actually, green looks like the last color in terms of mechanics here. As for its playability, I'm not sure I'd play this in limited and certainly not in constructed. In casual I see this card as potentially confusing. I don't see this card being that fun to play, because you will probably spend more time to understand exactly what this card does than resolving it.
Creativity Uniqueness (2/3) - The single parts have all already been done before, but I can't say putting them together doesn't result in a unique card. Flavor (1.5/3) - The name and concept are fine. There's no flavor text even though MSE tells me one line could have fit on the card with it still being good looking enough.
Polish Quality (1/3) - "Return… as" is not a standard template. It should be "Return… to the battlefield. They are 2/1 green…" (half a point deducted). The granted ability should be between classic (double) quotation marks, not single ones (half a point deducted). "Instead of their other abilities" is also nonstandard template. It should either be "They lose all other abilities" or somehow appear before granting the ability (half a point deducted). The word "elemental" should be capitalized because it's a creature type (#11 in MOQ1, half a point deducted).
Finally, I recommend formatting cards as specified in the CCC forum rules. In this case, that means using single breaks instead of double ones and write the rules text continously without breaking it. As usual with this kind of remarks, I'm not deducting points for this. Main Challenge (1.5/2) - It looks like this card animates the cards just as a mean to pass the main challenge, otherwise it could have just returned the cards directly to your hand and maybe give you some other bonus instead. This way you could have easily avoided the potential confusion of having an instant or sorcery card on the battlefield that can stay there just because it lost its other types. The card would have been much clearer that way, and if printed it would almost certainly be that way. Also, this COULD create a single creature if you cast it with X = 1, or even no creature for X = 0. I don't know why you would do that, but you're still allowed, and anyway the case where you create a single creature is more concrete and certainly plausible. This goes a little against the spirit of the main challenge, which asked for a card able to always create two creatures no matter what. Sub Challenges (2/2) - Both met. I like very much the clever way you passed subchallenge 2: use an X that doesn't count in the converted mana cost. Well done there!
Unite the TribesRG
Sorcery (R)
Shuffle your library, then exile the top card and the bottom card. If both of the exiled cards are creature cards that share a creature type, put both of them onto the battlefield. "Though we are of different worlds, in battle we are brothers."
Design Appeal (0.5/3) - Timmy would have liked this as a mean of putting big creatures directly onto the battlefield. He can't use this card for that (and rightfully so, it would have been broken otherwise), but some Timmy will like the unforeseeable outcome of this card. Again, shuffling the library makes this card not that appealing to both Johnny and Spike, the former can't set his resources up to optimize this, and the latter just hates not having control over the outcome. Elegance (2/3) - The mechanics are easily understandable. The name almost looks like it goes directly against mechanics and flavor text because it seems to imply you're uniting different tribes, while the mechanics care about having the same creature type and the flavor text clarifies that you're actually uniting individuals from different worlds but of the same tribe. This details somewhat prevents the card concept from completely making sense as a whole.
Development Viability (3/3) - The unpredictability of the outcome feels very red, and putting creatures from the library onto the battlefield is definitely green, so this card satisfies the color pie. The potential of putting two huge creatures onto the battlefield for just two mana requires this to be a rare. Balance (2/3) - I'd like to see this in a tribal environment like Lorwyn or at least like Innistrad. I think this could be playable in a tribal deck that can pay the mana cost in any format: limited, constructed, multiplayer. Anyway, I see this more like a casual card rather than a competitive one, and the shuffling is the reason for that. I understand that it's needed as a balancing factor to let the card cost only two mana, but having not even a little control over the outcome really hurts this card's playability in competitive formats. I don't see any reason this should create unfun interactions.
Creativity Uniqueness (3/3) - Involving the bottom card gives you high points here. Also, for once here the shuffling helps to differentiate this from other cards putting creatures directly from the library onto the battlefield. Flavor (1.5/3) - I've already talked about the problem of the card name implying the opposite of the rest of the card. Everything else is fine here, and I actually like the flavor text quite a lot.
Polish Quality (2.5/3) - The word "both" shouldn't be repeated. You either say "If both of the exiled cards… put them onto the battlefield" or "If the exiled cards… put both of them onto the battlefield" (half a point deducted). Main Challenge (1.5/2) - This card either puts no creatures or two creatures from the library, or technically the exile zone, onto the battlefield. It CAN create two creatures, so it still fits the main challenge, but it doesn't always do. This goes a little against the spirit of the main challenge, which asked for a card able to always create two creatures no matter what. Sub Challenges (2/2) - Both met.
Brisk Resurrection1BR
Sorcery (U)
Return target creature card from your graveyard to the battlefield. That creature gains haste and trample. Exile it at the beginning of the next end step.
Rebound "That was so amazing to see, I think I'll do it again!" - Kilren, Rakdos Augermage
Design Appeal (2/3) - Timmy will like to reanimate two of his big creatures that have somehow died. I don't think Johnny would do that much with this card. Spike likes this as a way to gain additional value from his dead creatures, and he loves the rebound. Elegance (3/3) - I see no problem here. Very easily understandable and makes complete sense as a whole.
Development Viability (3/3) - Very interesting design from a color pie point of view: black provides reanimations, and red provides haste, trample and the "exile at end of turn" part. It's like an Act of Treason that steals your dead creatures instead of an opposing living creature. This is an example of how sometimes you can take some classic effects from two different colors and combine them into something greater than the sum of the parts. It's also interesting to see rebound as a potential Rakdos mechanic. We've seen it in all colors in its first appearance in ROE, so there's nothing wrong in putting rebound in those colors, even though we only see it as the white/blue Ojutai mechanic in DTK. As for rarity, reanimation spells are traditionally uncommon, but I think this is a strong uncommon, borderline rare, especially because of the rebound. Balance (2.5/3) - Reanimation spells today cost at least five mana, but they don't exile the creature at end of turn. A better comparison can be the aforementioned Act of Treason, that costs three mana, so being a variant of it I can see this card costing 1BR which is also a slightly more difficult cost to pay to account for the rebound. Another comparison that can be done is with unearth, that practically does the same thing but it's an ability on the creature itself, and there are many unearth costs being three mana or less, so it's definitely plausible. Playable in limited if you have room for it in your deck, which won't always be the case. This could be useful in some constructed decks, but it's definitely not an all star there. As you can only reanimate from your own graveyard, I see no problems in multiplayer or casual, and the potential problem of stealing an opposing creature being unfun for the opponent is not even there.
Creativity Uniqueness (2.5/3) - As I was mentioning before, this card takes very common effects we see in almost every set and combines them in a way that feels unique and fresh. That's not an easy thing to do at all. Just deducting half a point from the maximum to account for the single parts being something we see very often, but prizing your card for obtaining a fresh feeling from very common parts. Flavor (3/3) - I see no problems here. Nice to see a flavor justification for the rebound in the flavor text.
Polish Quality (2.5/3) - In the flavor text, the attribution should be on its own line (#12 in MOQ1, half a point deducted). Main Challenge (1.5/2) - This only meets the main challenge because of rebound, and even there it's on the border line because it doesn't create two creatures as it resolves, but only one at a time. It looks like the spirit of the main challenge was having the spell create the two creatures at the same time, so it doesn't feel like it fits perfectly. Sub Challenges (2/2) - Both met.
Hope Reborn
Sorcery (U)
Return target creature card with converted mana cost one or less from your graveyard to the battlefield.
Storm (When you cast this spell, copy it for each spell cast before it this turn.)
Design Appeal (1/3) - Timmy doesn't certainly care, Spike probably does neither. This is a Johnny card at heart, both because of the effect and because of storm. Elegance (3/3) - I see no problem here. The effect is easily understandable and the card makes sense as a whole just fine.
Development Viability (3/3) - White can reanimate small creatures, so that is fine. Storm is in all colors so that is fine too. Reanimation spells are almost always uncommon, and this makes no exception. I don't think having storm is a problem from that point of view, so I can definitely accept this card being uncommon. Balance (2/3) - As soon as I saw this card has storm I was a bit scared. We all know how good storm is and what R&D thinks about it. But actually I think this card can still be safe and if I'm saying this it's just because of one reason: it has a cap. You can reanimate creatures with this card only until you have creatures costing one or zero mana in your graveyard, and that is a hard limit that can't be overcome. You can't go infinite with this, or rather you can, but after you've reanimated all creatures you could reanimate, the remaining copies of this spell won't do anything. At the contrary, the storm cards that we all know as being problematic either have no cap (Tendrils of Agony) or have a meaningless one (Dragonstorm, which can only search Dragon until you have them in your deck, but if you're playing Dragonstorm chances are that you have more than enough Dragon cards in your deck to be instantly lethal). Still, we have to use a little caution when dealing with a card with storm. I don't think I'd honestly play this in my limited deck. This a card made for constructed formats, where you can exploit all its interactions at the maximum level. The bigger the card pool is the better this card will be, because there are more viable creatures to reanimate. That's why I'd expect this card to be relatively harmless in Stardard and potentially problematic in Legacy. I see no difference from all that I've said here in multiplayer. I'm not sure how many casual players would play this. I also find hard to associate the word "storm" with "fun", but as I've said in this case I don't see that huge of a problem.
Creativity Uniqueness (2.5/3) - I searched Gatherer for all cards with storm and indeed I didn't find any reanimation effects, so this is certainly new enough. Flavor (2/3) - The name is not only fine, but quite good. The only remark I can make about it is that it reminds me of Alara Reborn, but that's a very minor thing. Unfortunately, there's no flavor text here, even though there's more than enough room for a couple lines on the card.
Polish Quality (3/3) - All good here. Main Challenge (1.5/2) - Again (I'm referring to the previous card I had to judge), this card only meets the main challenge because of a keyword it has. If this hadn't storm it couldn't evercreate multiple creatures in the sense of this round's main challenge. Actually, if I cast this without having cast other spells before it in the turn, which means with a storm count fo zero, this creates only a single creature and not two. And even there, it creates it only if you have a legal creature card to target. That's why I don't feel this card perfectly fits the spirit of the main challenge, which required you to create a card that could always create two creatures, no matter what. Sub Challenges (2/2) - Both met.
Assault Duo2RR
Sorcery (R)
As an additional cost to cast Assault Duo, sacrifice two creatures.
You may put up to two creature cards from your hand onto the battlefield. Those creatures gain haste until end of turn. Sacrifice them at end of turn.
Design Appeal (1/3) - Timmy likes the effect but doesn't like to have to sacrifice creatures. Johnny may try to do something with this, but I don't see him doing that much. Spike likes that he can improve useless creatures into more valuable ones, but he would rather take them from the library. If he already has them in his hand, he might as well cast them. Maybe He could save mana using this, but is spending a card worth the saving in mana? Elegance (2.5/3) - I don't see big problems here, maybe the only one being new or less experienced players not getting that you still have to sacrifice the two creatures even if this gets countered, because the sacrifice is a cost and not part of the effect. Other than that, all is good here. The fact that it's called a "duo" and involes sacrificing and creating exactly two creatures helps this card make sense as a whole.
Development Viability (0.5/3) - I think we might have a problem here. Putting creatures from the hand directly onto the battlefield is definitely green and not red. This card should have green in its mana cost. I see this as a perfect red/green card: green provides the first part of the effect (putting creatures from your hand onto the battlefield) and red the second (haste and sacrifice at end of turn). I'm sorry but I don't find this card acceptable as a monored one. If it was printable like this, rarity would be certainly right. Balance (1.5/3) - The fact that this requires the sacrifice of two creatures and that you have to sacrifice the creatures at end of turn implies that in two turn you will effectively have given up two creatures. Giving up resource for short term gain definitely fits red philosophically, but I think you'd play this only when you know the attack from the creatures you put onto the battlefield will be lethal. I think this wouldn't be that playable in limited, and it would be used in constructed only (or at least mainly) as a win condition. In multiplayer you will have the additional decision of which players to attack with the two creatures you put onto the battlefield, but it gets worse because the damage outcome is more diluted (you need to deal more damage to win the game). I don't see this being too frustating when played against you.
Creativity Uniqueness (0.5/3) - It's unique but not in the good way, as its most unusual and original thing for its color breaks the color pie. The parts that don't are nothing new. Flavor (1/3) - The name is good in that is reflects very well the mechanics of the card, but it sounds like a creature name. In fact, the "Duo" cycle from Shadowmoor are creatures (for example Tattermunge Duo). MSE also tells me one or two lines of flavor text coud have fit.
Polish Quality (3/3) - All good here. Main Challenge (1.5/2) - The only time this will create a single creature is when you only have one in your hand, but in that case, why did you cast this? To get board disadvantage? It doesn't look like a good idea, so even though this COULD create a single creature or no creature, you'll actually never cast it if you already know you won't be able to create two creatures. Any sane player would always cast this to create two creature, but still there is the possibility of creating no creatures or only a single one. This goes a little against the spirit of the main challenge, which asked for a card able to always create two creatures no matter what. Sub Challenges (2/2) - Both met.
Spellbinding FormsXGU
Instant (R)
Exile up to X spells controlled by the same player in face-down pile, shuffle that pile, then their controller manifests those cards. (To manifest a card, put it onto the battlefield face down as a 2/2 creature. Turn it face up any time for its mana cost if it's a creature card.)
Design Appeal (1/3) - Timmy doesn't care. Johnny will love the challenges this poses in deckbuilding and gameplay. Spike doesn't like this for two reasons: he would like to always get the manifested creatures himself, and even if he somehow does this on himself he will rarely get more than one creature. How often do you see the same player controlling more than one spell on the stack? Storm or replicate come to mind, but even then, the copies aren't cards so they won't get manifested. Elegance (1/3) - There are some problems here, and I'm not referring that much to the necessary template to manifest known cards that we also saw in FRF, rather to exiling spells directly from the stack, which is something we rarely see (the only card that comes to my mind is Mindbreak Trap) and that may be quite confusing to players, especially new or less experienced ones. I remember when I just started playing back in 2005 and I thought that Parallectric Feedback dealt damage equal to a permanent's cmc because I knew that "spell" meant "nonland card" but I thought on the battlefield.
Development Viability (3/3) - This can be seen as a variation on Ethereal Ambush, so being green/blue looks fine. Rarity looks fine for complexity reasons alone. Balance (1/3) - This is quite hard to use correctly, but at first impression it looks balanced enough. As I've already said, I don't see you casting this for any value of X greater than 1. I think the most common and best use for this will be as a pseudo-soft counter to something huge your opponent casts, possibly a noncreature spell, so that he or she won't be able to turn it face up again once manifested. I can't see myself playing this in my limited deck, and even in constructed I think this card wouldn't see much play in Standard, let alone larger formats. In multiplayer, there may be the interesting choice of which player to use this on. From the other side of the table, when I cast a big spell and you cast this to make me manifest it instead of resolving it, I don't think I would have much fun, to say the least.
Creativity Uniqueness (2.5/3) - It looks like a variation on the aforementioned Ethereal Ambush, but the exiling spells makes this feel unique and fresh enough. Flavor (1.5/3) - Name is fine. MSE tells me the text box is already filled by the rules text at normal font size, but if you shrink the font size to still acceptable values some flavor text could have fit.
Polish Quality (3/3) - I see no problems here. Main Challenge (1.5/2) - Rarely casting this for X greater than 1 kind of goes against the spirit of the main challenge. Yes, this COULD create two creatures, or even more (and that's why it still technically passes the main challenge), but it rarely will in actual gameplay. This goes a little against the spirit of the main challenge, which asked for a card able to always create two creatures no matter what. Sub Challenges (2/2) - Both met. Again a card that uses X to pass subchallenge 2, even if in your case, at the contrary of a previous card, is wasn't strictly needed.
Recompose3B
Sorcery (U)
Sacrifice a creature. Choose any number of target creature cards from your graveyard with total converted mana cost equal to the sacrificed creatures converted mana cost and put them onto the battlefield.
Design Appeal (1/3) - Timmy doesn't like that much sacrificing a big creature to get a lot of smaller ones. Johnny loves this card and is already brewing. I don't see Spike liking this that much, maybe if it were an instant so that he could cast it in response to removal. Elegance (2/3) - New and less experienced players may have some problem mentally parsing the part about the sum of the converted mana costs, but other than this it's fine.
Development Viability (3/3) - The effect is clearly black, so no problem there. I can see this at uncommon, it can't certainly be common with all the mentions of cmc involved, and it would indeed look underwhelming as a rare. Balance (2/3) - As a sorcery it looks balanced at four mana, but that same fact of being a sorcery hurts this card's playability, as you can't play it in response to removal, as I've already mentioned. I don't see this card being played in limited, where you want your noncreature nonland cards to be either removal or combat tricks, with rare exceptions. In constructed there may be some combo deck using this somehow to put a lot of creatures onto the battlefield at once, but even if there is I certainly don't see making it beyond Standard, and even there I have my doubts. I see no problems in multiplayer or casual, except the potential comprehension complexity I've already talked about. I don't see any problem under the "fun" section too.
Creativity Uniqueness (3/3) - I can't remember any already existing card doing something like this before. Maybe Protean Hulk, but this is certainly different enough. Flavor (2.5/3) - The name is very good and I'm amazed at the fact that it isn't already used. It also tells a lot of flavor by itself even without flavor text, a couple lines of which would have easily fit on the card according to MSE, but the name being so good partially makes up for its absence.
Polish Quality (2.5/3) - "creatures converted mana cost" is missing an apostrophe for the Saxon genitive (half a point deducted). Main Challenge (1.5/2) - Again, this COULD put more than one creatures on the battlefield, and thus it technically passes the main challenge, but it isn't guaranteed to do. If you use this card to reanimate only a single creature that has the same cmc as the one you sacrifice, you're only creating one creature. This goes a little against the spirit of the main challenge, which asked for a card able to always create two creatures no matter what. Sub Challenges (2/2) - Both met.
Genesis Pod2GG
Artifact - Mythic rare 3GG, Sacrifice a creature: Look at the top six cards of your library, you may put up to two creature cards from among them onto the battlefield. Put the rest on the bottom of your library in any order. Activate this ability only any time you could cast a sorcery.
Design Appeal (2/3) - Timmy likes being able to put two of his big creatures onto the battlefield, but he won't always find them and doesn't like having to sacrifice one as a cost. Johnny likes this as there are a lot of things he can do with it. Spike doesn't like that it's not guaranteed to find two creatures among the top six cards, but if this proves reliable enough,he will use it. Elegance (2.5/3) - The (very probably intentional) resemblance to Birthing Pod helps here, but it's still a bit wordy as a card.
Development Viability (3/3) - Searching and putting creatures directly from the the library onto the battlefield is surely green, so no problem there. The comparison with Birthing Pod and the fact that the ability is repeatable and without any kind of restriction on the creatures you can find (unlike the Pod) justify this being mythic. Balance (1.5/3) - I think this would surely get played in constructed, not as a green "must play" but there would surely be some decks trying to get advantage of this. In limited I'm not sure it's that playable. Again, you usually want the noncreature nonland cards of your limited deck to be removal spells or combat tricks, and this isn't either, even if technically you can activate the ability in response to a creature that's about to die. By the way, this also adds to the strength of this card. In casual or multiplayer, this could put a target on yourself, but other than that it's fine. It can lead to unfun experiences if and when it degenerates, just like Pod.
Creativity Uniqueness (1.5/3) - The same comparison with Birthing Pod helped before, but hurts here. This feels like a variation on it rather than a new, unique, and fresh card. Flavor (1.5/3) - And here the comparison with Pod helps instead. I like very much the reference to it in the name. No room for flavor text unless you shrink the font size to borderline levels.
Polish Quality (2.5/3) - Between the words "library" and "put" there should be a period, not a comma (half a point deducted). Main Challenge (1.5/2) - Again, this isn't guaranteed to create two creatures. It COULD do it, sure, and thus it technically still passes the main challenge, but when you activate this, you're not sure you will find two creatures. This goes a little against the spirit of the main challenge, which asked for a card able to always create two creatures no matter what. Sub Challenges (2/2) - 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.)
DeathstormBBB
Enchantment {R}
Whenever a creature you control dies, put the top two cards of your library into your graveyard. 4BB, sacrifice Deathstorm: Return all creatures from your graveyard to the battlefield.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A polite player might call my card choices "interesting." At my budget, "interesting" is the only option.
Enrage the Land1RG
Sorcery (UC)
Target Mountain you control becomes a 4/2 red Elemental creature with trample. It's still a land.
Target Forest you control becomes a 2/4 green Elemental creature with reach. It's still a land. "Even Zendikar itself aids us against the Eldrazi."
-Nissa Revane
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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
Ugin's Presence 5
Enchantment [rare] 5: Manifest a card in your hand 5: Exile a facedown creature you control. If that card an instant or sorcery, you may cast it without paying its mana cost.
Animate Equipment (Uncommon) 2U
Instant
Change the text of each Equipment you control by replacing all instances of "equipped creature" with "this creature" until end of turn. They become creatures with base power and toughness 3/3 until end of turn.
Necromantic Intervention2BR
Instant (U)
Exile up to two cards at random from your graveyard in a face-down pile, shuffle that pile, then manifest those cards. (To manifest a card, put it onto the battlefield face down as a 2/2 creature. Turn it face up any time for its mana cost if it's a creature card.)
Hordechief's Call1RW
Instant (U)
Put three 1/1 white Warrior creature tokens onto the battlefield. Raid - Sacrifice those creatures at the beginning of the next upkeep unless you attacked with a creature this turn. "An ambush must be swift and brutal, but most important, it must leave no survivors."
-Zurgo, khan of the Mardu
Soul Reverser1BG
Artifact (M) t, Pay 1 life,Sacrifice three permanents: Reveal cards from the top of your library until you reveal two creature cards with converted mana cost less than the total converted mana cost of the sacrificed permanents. Put them onto the battlefield, then put all other cards revealed this way on the bottom of your library in a random order.
When Soul of Gaea enters the battlefield, you may search your library for up to two creature cards with converted mana cost two or less and put them onto the battlefield.Then shuffle your library.
When Soul of Gae leaves the battlefield, destroy all creatures you control.
The tyrant gazes from his lofty perch, always content to look down upon his so-called 'subjects' while his slave-drivers force them to perform their endless toiling. Little does he realize, however, that no army, earthly or otherwise, can suppress the human desire for freedom forever. Fear will initially rob a man of courage, but the tough times that the tyrant will inevitably create will steel his offspring, and they too will produce children of great mettle. And when a man is of vast strength, his will, too, will grow. We will be swift with our preparations. The tyrant does not know it now, but his time is at its end. We will be triumphant. The fire rises.
Main Challenge: Design a card that creates two or more creature permanents for you.
Subchallenge 1: Your card does not create creature tokens.
Subchallenge 2: Your card isn't a creature and has a converted mana cost of 4 or less.
Player deadline: May 4th, 23:59 PM
Judge deadline: May 7th, 23:59 PM
For the main challenge, your card must be capable of putting multiple creatures directly onto the battlefield. Vitu-Ghazi Guildmage, Hordeling Outburst, Goblin Rabblemaster, Artisan of Kozilek, and Whisperwood Elemental would qualify, but Squadron Hawk and Æther Vial would not.
Appeal (X/3): Do the different player psychographics (Timmy/Johhny/Spike) have a use for the card? Does it create or fit into a deck/archetype?
Elegance (X/3): Are the concepts of the card easily understood at a glance? Do all the flavor and mechanics combined as a whole make sense?
Development
Viability (X/3): 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?
Balance (X/3): 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 fun play experiences?
Creativity
Uniqueness (X/3): 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”?
Flavor (X/3): 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
Quality (X/3): Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
Main Challenge (X/2): Points deducted if the card does not meet the main challenge or only partially meets the main challenge.
Sub Challenges (X/2): One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Total: X/25
admirableadmiral
TacticalCelebrant
Jimmy Groove
sperlman
Ryder052
scrad_the_wanderer
netn10
GameWorldLeader
Mix Master Mikaeus
northprophet
FortiutousEntity
doomfish
P E
Legend
Moss_Elemental
thenoodler
Ogonomany
CrazyMatt
Freyleyes
Koopa
Bravelion83
coletrain
Vertain
FreshMeat
PsyOp
Flatline
Piar
Sagharri
IcariiFA
Tesco(black)lotus
Tilwin
ThunderManatee
deidarakoon
Eskimo_Rage
L0ng5h0t
Antny223
Trivmvirate
SelesnyaNewLife
RaikouRider
Appeal (2/3): This is a johnny card for sure. Spike doesn't want to spend turn 3 and turn 4 to get a Polymorph. Timmy might be interested if he can gurantee to get a fatty.
Elegance (2/3): Mechanically this is fine, but this makes no sense flavor-wise. Why is a wizard turning into something else? Why is a creature called a 'pod'? You really needed some flavor text and a better name.
Development
Viability (3/3): This is fine.
Balance (1.5/3): This body is barely relevant if you don't morph it, and if you do morph it's an expensive instant speed polymorph, even if it can steal your opponent's cards. I think the morph cost could have been 1U.
Creativity
Uniqueness (1/3): Stealing creatures is new, but otherwise this doesn't do much else that hasn't been done before.
Flavor (1/3): The flavor is confusing and there isn't any flavor text, despite there being plenty of room for some.
Polish
Quality (3/3):
Main Challenge (1/2): Because you have to sacrifice a creature in order to get the second, this doesn't fit the spirit of the challenge.
Sub Challenges (2/2):
Total: 14.5/25
Appeal (2/3): This is a potential combo piece for johnny and there's a good amount of value for spike as a super-Scout's Warning. Timmy doesn't care.
Elegance (3/3): This is good.
Development
Viability (2/3): This is a rare, if Dramatic Entrance, Scout's Warning, and Collected Company are anything to go by.
Balance (3/3): This is fine. If anything, you could have made it more interesting and powerful by letting the player draw a card first, then put creatures into play.
Creativity
Uniqueness (2/3): Very similar to Collected Company, but different enough in certain ways.
Flavor (3/3): Good name and better flavor text.
Polish
Quality (2/3): It should be "You may put any number of creature cards with total converted mana cost 4 or less from your hand onto the battlefield."
Main Challenge (2/2):
Sub Challenges (2/2):
Total: 21/25
Appeal (2/3): This is a Johnny and Spike card.
Elegance (2.5/3): This should probably let you get 0-drops as well, but otherwise it's elegant.
Development
Viability (3/3): White and rare are good. Multikicker could be used instead of xx.
Balance (1.5/3): This is pretty weak. For 4 mana you get an anthem for your 1 drops and a 1 drop out of your deck, and for 6 or more mana this card is far too weak when compared to other cards at that cost. In limited this will be bad because you have to run a bunch of 1-drops to enable it, which you don't want to do and typically aren't able to do. In standard this might be good enough. I think that xWWW would have been a better costing for this card, as at that point it's not easy to cast but the reward is very much there.
Creativity
Uniqueness (2/3): Marshal's Anthem does a lot of similar things to this card.
Flavor (2.5/3): The flavor doesn't stand out, but it isn't bad either.
Polish
Quality (3/3):
Main Challenge (2/2):
Sub Challenges (2/2):
Total: 20.5/25
Appeal (1/3): This is too expensive for Spike. Johnny likes it. Timmy doesn't.
Elegance (1.5/3): This card is fairly convoluted, and the fact that you use two variables doesn't help.
Development
Viability (2/3): This would make more sense as a black (or potentially white) enchantment. Reanimation isn't really a thing artifacts typically do.
Balance (1.5/3): The card scales poorly with X; if you make X too high, there's a chance that you can end up with one or two counters that you can't remove because a creature at that cost doesn't die before the game ends. And if you're setting the card to a low enough value that you just steal one creature, you're overpaying for an Unhallowed Pact. Additionally, the fact that this card makes you go through some hoops to get value out of your X-spell isn't ideal.
Creativity
Uniqueness (3/3):
Flavor (3/3): The mechanics explain the flavor well enough.
Polish
Quality (3/3):
Main Challenge (1/2): Because of how conditional the method by which your card creates two creatures is, I don't feel like I can award you full points in this area.
Sub Challenges (2/2):
Total: 17/25
Appeal (2/3): Johnny wants to combo this and timmy wants to use this to play two of his fatties. Spike doesn't want to wait five turns to get a mana discount.
Elegance (3/3):
Development
Viability (3/3): This fits the bill.
Balance (1.5/3): This is too slow for what it does. While it does let you cheat two creatures into play, waiting five turns is a huge amount of time after you've already cast a four mana spell. Three counters would have been a better number.
Creativity
Uniqueness (1.5/3): This is sort of a Tooth and Nail with suspend.
Flavor (2/3): The flavor is good, even if the flavor text is mediocre.
Polish
Quality (2/3): Krosan should be capitalized. It's "Put up to two creature cards..."
Main Challenge (2/2):
Sub Challenges (2/2):
Total: 19/25
Appeal (2/3): Johnny and Spike like this. Timmy isn't.
Elegance (3/3): It's clean and easy.
Development
Viability (2/3): This is probably an uncommon; it's not complex and it isn't that powerful. This is a great example of red card advantage, however.
Balance (3/3): This is really well balanced. It's got a chance of being strong card advantage, yet if it isn't it's a Hellspark Elemental-type card, which is what red does.
Creativity
Uniqueness (3/3): This feels very red, yet very new.
Flavor (3/3): The name isn't great, but the rest of the card is.
Polish
Quality (2/3): It should be "At the beginning of each end step..."
Main Challenge (2/2):
Sub Challenges (2/2):
Total: 22/25
Appeal (3/3): Everyone likes something here.
Elegance (3/3): This isn't hard to understand.
Development
Viability (3/3): Green and mythic fit.
Balance (-5/3): This card is so egregiously overpowered that I'm going to take away points in this area. Let me give you an idea of how ridiculous this card is: In legacy, one of the more powerful decks in that format revolves around using the card Show and Tell to put Emrakul, the Aeons Torn into play. That card requires that you draw emrakul, and also allows your opponent to put a card into play for free as well. Not only is your card one-sided, but it also lets you get the card from your deck, and lets you get two creature cards. Imagine that you put this in a deck with only the creature cards Urabrask the Hidden and Emrakul the Aeons Torn. You will literally win the game on the spot whenever you cast this card in any format. The card that replicates this effect the closest is an entwined Tooth and Nail, and that card costs nine mana. Nine mana. Another comparable card is Oath of Druids. Oath requires that you control fewer creatures, makes you wait until your upkeep to get the trigger, and only gets one creature at a time. In spite of being worse than your card in three separate ways, Oath is a powerful strategy in vintage, where it's played alongside the most powerful cards ever printed. Your card breaks so many rules and boundaries of Magic that giving it a balance score of 0/3 would not be enough to emphasize how overpowered this card is. This card would literally have to be banned in every format and restricted in vintage if it were to be ever printed.
As an aside, you should probably put the cards on the bottom of the library in a random order.
Creativity
Uniqueness (0/3): This card is just two triggers of Oath of Druids, minus the restrictions.
Flavor (3/3): The name and flavor text are very good.
Polish
Quality (3/3):
Main Challenge (2/2):
Sub Challenges (2/2):
Total: 15/25
Appeal (3/3): Johnny wants to abuse this, Timmy loves the big effect, and Spike likes the immense value in addition to the card selection.
Elegance (3/3): It's easy to understand.
Development
Viability (3/3): This feels more green than blue, but otherwise is perfect.
Balance (3/3): This is very powerful, but as with any other X-spell, requires a lot of mana. This card in particular feels very fair, yet very good.
Creativity
Uniqueness (2.5/3): It's like a super-Write into Being.
Flavor (2/3): The name and mechanics explain the flavor, but you had a lot of space for some flavor text.
Polish
Quality (3/3):
Main Challenge (2/2):
Sub Challenges (2/2):
Total: 22.5/25
Appeal (3/3): Everyone likes something.
Elegance (3/3): Nothing confusing here.
Development
Viability (1.5/3): This should absolutely be a mythic rare.
Balance (1/3): This is really, really powerful. Rise of the Dark Realms costs nine mana, and while your card only reanimates things from your graveyard, it's still incredibly powerful, especially given how it also fills up your graveyard. The activated ability should only be usable at sorcery speed, and should have a higher mana cost or some other kind of cost associated with it, as six mana is just too cheap.
Creativity
Uniqueness (1/3): The parts aren't all that new.
Flavor (1.5/3): This doesn't really feel like a storm to me, and the flavor doesn't help.
Polish
Quality (1.5/3): It should be "Return each creature card...", and the S in Sacrifice should be capitalized.
Main Challenge (1/2): Because it doesn't give you creatures upon resolution, I feel it misses the spirit of the challenge somewhat.
Sub Challenges (2/2):
Total: 16.5/25
Jimmy Groove 21
sperlman 20.5
Ryder052 17
scrad_the_wanderer 19
netn10 22
GameWorldLeader 15
Mix Master Mikeaus 22.5
northprophet 16.5
Creature - Wizard Mutant (R)
Morph 3U
When Polymorph Pod is turned face up, sacrifice it, then reveal cards from the top of target player's library until he or she reveals a creature card. Put that card onto the battlefield under your control, then put all other cards revealed this way into their owner's graveyard.
1/3
Instant (U)
Put any number of creature cards with a total converted mana cost four or less from your hand onto the battlefield.
Draw a card.
When the Conclave is in danger, reinforcements arrive in a flash.
It would not. Your card must create two creatures; you can't steal them from the battlefield.
Enchantment (R)
When Uprising of the Meek enters the battlefield, search your library for up to X creature cards with converted mana cost 1 and put them onto the battlefield, then shuffle your library.
Creatures you control with converted mana cost 1 get +1/+1.
Yes.
Enchantment (r)
At the beginning of your upkeep, put a vitality counter on Thriving forces.
When Thriving Forces has five of more vitality counters on it, sacrifice it. If you do, put two creature cards from your hand onto the battlefield.
In the krosan forest, terrible monters are as plentiful as trees.
Blazing Manifestation 1RR
Sorcery (Rare)
Manifest the top two cards of your library. They gain haste and "At the end of turn, if this creature is face down, exile it."
In the hands of the Temur, Ugin's fire delivers life as well as death.
Sorcery (M)
Reveal cards from the top of your library until you reveal two creature cards. Put those cards onto the battlefield. Put all other cards revealed this way on the bottom of your library in any order.
"Garruk had planned for such treachery, and called a wurm that devoured the man. He took his helm and wandered back into the wilds."
MCC March 2014 - 1st Round (17th-24th)
MCC April 2014 - 1st Round (17th-32nd)
MCC May 2014 - 1st Round (17th-32nd)
MCC June 2014 - Judge
MCC July 2014 - Host
MCC August 2014 - 1st Round (17th-31st)
MCC August 2015 - 1st Round (21st-36th)
MCC September 2015 - 1st Round (22nd-39th)
MCC October 2015 - 1st Round (13th-20th)
CCL May 2014 - Score: 29/36 (10th)
CCL June 2014 - Score: 86/150 (10th)
CCL July 2014 - Score:36/50 (6th T)
CCL August 2015 - Score: 14 (5th T)
CCL September 2015 - Score: 3 (5th)
CCL October 2015 - Host
DCC October 2015 - Score: 46 (8th-T)
Sorcery [M]
Look at the top X cards of your library. Manifest any number of those cards, then put the rest on the top or bottom of your library in any order.
----------------------------
Club Flamingo Wins: 10
----------------------------
EDH Decks
BG Vicious Varolz | RW Jor Kadeen, the Mean Machine | RG Atarka: Muh_Dragons.dec (WIP) | WU Brago, Blink Eternal (WIP)
----------------------------
Judging is final.
In judging the main challenge, I considered it as asking for a spell that always immediately creates exactly two or more creatures (and never just one or zero) as it resolves. That was the spirit of the main challenge and its intended difficulty as I interpreted it. For an example of a custom card that satisfies it completely, see my judge card.
Check out "The Lion's Lair", the article series where I specifically talk about custom card design with the intent to help you get better at it. The article index is always updated with the latest content.
Note - When I say "#N in MOQX", it means: this is the mistake number N in my "Mark of Quality, part X" article.
Challenges: what counts is always the letter of the law.
Quality: half a point deducted for any error in templating, wording, spelling, or grammar, no matter how little they may be; a whole point for particularly serious errors.
No complaints unless I got something objectively wrong.
Double Blossom XBG
Sorcery (R)
Search your graveyard, hand and/or library for two creature cards with total converted mana cost X or less and put them onto the battlefield tapped. If you search your library this way, shuffle it.
Some plants grow sprouts always in pairs.
This card will always create two creatures no matter what. It requires to always find two creatures, because it doesn't say "up to", even though it poses limitations on the creatures it creates. If you have two creatures in the mentioned zones, you're forced to get them. If you've been milled or something and you only have one card in your library (so it's not possible that you have two creatures in the library), you will have to get the creatures out of your graveyard (reason why the card is partially black) or hand. The only possible way for this to not always create two creatures is if you're playing it in a creatureless deck. But then why are you playing a card that lets you search for creatures in a creatureless deck? You must be doing something wrong!
coletrain
Appeal (1.5/3) - Timmy doesn't care, he'd rather like to reanimate his huge monsters. Johnny loves this card, he can use it as part of a recurring engine or something like that. Spike likes this if the creatures this can target are valuable ones, like utility creatures.
Elegance (3/3) - This card is very short and easily understandable, so it results very elegant. Also, it totally makes sense as a whole.
Development
Viability (3/3) - Black and white can both reanimate creatures: black every one, while white usually only small ones. This means that this card fits perfectly in the color pie. Being able to reanimate two creatures, even if small ones, at instant speed, I can see this being rare.
Balance (2/3) - The cost looks reasonable: I'd say it's too low given this is an instant, but then this is very limited in its targets. I'm not sure I'd play this in my limited deck, as I don't think I will have room among creatures, removal, and combat tricks. This is more of a constructed card, even though the creatures you'd usually like to reanimate cost more than two mana. This can still be useful though with some utility creatures. It's also reanimation at instant speed, which is never to be undervalued. I see no problem in casual and multiplayer formats, nor I see this card creating unfun experiences.
Creativity
Uniqueness (0.5/3) - The effect is all but original. We've seen a lot of variations on reanimation effects, just not this specific one.
Flavor (3/3) - Name, flavor text, and card concept are all good here. I particularly appreciate the use of the word "Return" in both the name and the rules text. It makes the card feel more of a whole.
Polish
Quality (3/3) - I see no problem here. I just recommend formatting cards as specified in the CCC forum rules. In this case, that means bolding the card name. As usual with this kind of remarks, I'm not deducting points for this.
Main Challenge (1.5/2) - This puts two creatures on the battlefield as a spell's effect, but only as long as you have two creatures cards in your graveyard that satisfy the targeting requirement. It's still not guaranteed to always create exactly two creatures though, both because of the "up to" and because of the targeting requirement.This goes a little against the spirit of the main challenge, which asked for a card able to always create two creatures no matter what.
Sub Challenges (2/2) - Both met.
Total: 19.5/25
Appeal (1/3) - Timmy doesn't care. Johnny loves this for so many reasons. He loves to try to break and win with cards everyone else dismisses. Spike sees this as a too conditional Disentomb.
Elegance (0/3) - This is all but elegant. Wordy, complicated, and with nonstandard templates. It also takes some time to mentally process what the effect exactly does.
Development
Viability (2.5/3) - This card has a little from all of it colors: black reanimates, blue changes the creatures' stats and returns them from the battlefield to hand, but the end result (take a card from your graveyard and later return it to your hand) can be green, in addition to making the creatures green Elementals. Rarity is acceptable, even though this card is so complex that I could see it being printed at mythic for that reason alone.
Balance (1/3) - There are some potential problems here. Even though when you animate a card without saying "in addition to its other types" the card loses all the previous types, if you use it on an instant or sorcery card you will end up with a card that can technically stay on the battlefield, because it's no longer an instant or sorcery anymore, but that will physically look like it's an instant or sorcery card on the battlefield. You can't even put it face down to clarify it lost its other types, because a face-down card is defined as a colorless 2/2 creature, and it is not. Are we sure all players, especially new and less experienced ones, will understand this? I am not. Also, I see no need for the double green in the mana cost. Actually, green looks like the last color in terms of mechanics here. As for its playability, I'm not sure I'd play this in limited and certainly not in constructed. In casual I see this card as potentially confusing. I don't see this card being that fun to play, because you will probably spend more time to understand exactly what this card does than resolving it.
Creativity
Uniqueness (2/3) - The single parts have all already been done before, but I can't say putting them together doesn't result in a unique card.
Flavor (1.5/3) - The name and concept are fine. There's no flavor text even though MSE tells me one line could have fit on the card with it still being good looking enough.
Polish
Quality (1/3) - "Return… as" is not a standard template. It should be "Return… to the battlefield. They are 2/1 green…" (half a point deducted). The granted ability should be between classic (double) quotation marks, not single ones (half a point deducted). "Instead of their other abilities" is also nonstandard template. It should either be "They lose all other abilities" or somehow appear before granting the ability (half a point deducted). The word "elemental" should be capitalized because it's a creature type (#11 in MOQ1, half a point deducted).
Finally, I recommend formatting cards as specified in the CCC forum rules. In this case, that means using single breaks instead of double ones and write the rules text continously without breaking it. As usual with this kind of remarks, I'm not deducting points for this.
Main Challenge (1.5/2) - It looks like this card animates the cards just as a mean to pass the main challenge, otherwise it could have just returned the cards directly to your hand and maybe give you some other bonus instead. This way you could have easily avoided the potential confusion of having an instant or sorcery card on the battlefield that can stay there just because it lost its other types. The card would have been much clearer that way, and if printed it would almost certainly be that way. Also, this COULD create a single creature if you cast it with X = 1, or even no creature for X = 0. I don't know why you would do that, but you're still allowed, and anyway the case where you create a single creature is more concrete and certainly plausible. This goes a little against the spirit of the main challenge, which asked for a card able to always create two creatures no matter what.
Sub Challenges (2/2) - Both met. I like very much the clever way you passed subchallenge 2: use an X that doesn't count in the converted mana cost. Well done there!
Total: 12.5/25
Appeal (0.5/3) - Timmy would have liked this as a mean of putting big creatures directly onto the battlefield. He can't use this card for that (and rightfully so, it would have been broken otherwise), but some Timmy will like the unforeseeable outcome of this card. Again, shuffling the library makes this card not that appealing to both Johnny and Spike, the former can't set his resources up to optimize this, and the latter just hates not having control over the outcome.
Elegance (2/3) - The mechanics are easily understandable. The name almost looks like it goes directly against mechanics and flavor text because it seems to imply you're uniting different tribes, while the mechanics care about having the same creature type and the flavor text clarifies that you're actually uniting individuals from different worlds but of the same tribe. This details somewhat prevents the card concept from completely making sense as a whole.
Development
Viability (3/3) - The unpredictability of the outcome feels very red, and putting creatures from the library onto the battlefield is definitely green, so this card satisfies the color pie. The potential of putting two huge creatures onto the battlefield for just two mana requires this to be a rare.
Balance (2/3) - I'd like to see this in a tribal environment like Lorwyn or at least like Innistrad. I think this could be playable in a tribal deck that can pay the mana cost in any format: limited, constructed, multiplayer. Anyway, I see this more like a casual card rather than a competitive one, and the shuffling is the reason for that. I understand that it's needed as a balancing factor to let the card cost only two mana, but having not even a little control over the outcome really hurts this card's playability in competitive formats. I don't see any reason this should create unfun interactions.
Creativity
Uniqueness (3/3) - Involving the bottom card gives you high points here. Also, for once here the shuffling helps to differentiate this from other cards putting creatures directly from the library onto the battlefield.
Flavor (1.5/3) - I've already talked about the problem of the card name implying the opposite of the rest of the card. Everything else is fine here, and I actually like the flavor text quite a lot.
Polish
Quality (2.5/3) - The word "both" shouldn't be repeated. You either say "If both of the exiled cards… put them onto the battlefield" or "If the exiled cards… put both of them onto the battlefield" (half a point deducted).
Main Challenge (1.5/2) - This card either puts no creatures or two creatures from the library, or technically the exile zone, onto the battlefield. It CAN create two creatures, so it still fits the main challenge, but it doesn't always do. This goes a little against the spirit of the main challenge, which asked for a card able to always create two creatures no matter what.
Sub Challenges (2/2) - Both met.
Total: 18/25
Appeal (2/3) - Timmy will like to reanimate two of his big creatures that have somehow died. I don't think Johnny would do that much with this card. Spike likes this as a way to gain additional value from his dead creatures, and he loves the rebound.
Elegance (3/3) - I see no problem here. Very easily understandable and makes complete sense as a whole.
Development
Viability (3/3) - Very interesting design from a color pie point of view: black provides reanimations, and red provides haste, trample and the "exile at end of turn" part. It's like an Act of Treason that steals your dead creatures instead of an opposing living creature. This is an example of how sometimes you can take some classic effects from two different colors and combine them into something greater than the sum of the parts. It's also interesting to see rebound as a potential Rakdos mechanic. We've seen it in all colors in its first appearance in ROE, so there's nothing wrong in putting rebound in those colors, even though we only see it as the white/blue Ojutai mechanic in DTK. As for rarity, reanimation spells are traditionally uncommon, but I think this is a strong uncommon, borderline rare, especially because of the rebound.
Balance (2.5/3) - Reanimation spells today cost at least five mana, but they don't exile the creature at end of turn. A better comparison can be the aforementioned Act of Treason, that costs three mana, so being a variant of it I can see this card costing 1BR which is also a slightly more difficult cost to pay to account for the rebound. Another comparison that can be done is with unearth, that practically does the same thing but it's an ability on the creature itself, and there are many unearth costs being three mana or less, so it's definitely plausible. Playable in limited if you have room for it in your deck, which won't always be the case. This could be useful in some constructed decks, but it's definitely not an all star there. As you can only reanimate from your own graveyard, I see no problems in multiplayer or casual, and the potential problem of stealing an opposing creature being unfun for the opponent is not even there.
Creativity
Uniqueness (2.5/3) - As I was mentioning before, this card takes very common effects we see in almost every set and combines them in a way that feels unique and fresh. That's not an easy thing to do at all. Just deducting half a point from the maximum to account for the single parts being something we see very often, but prizing your card for obtaining a fresh feeling from very common parts.
Flavor (3/3) - I see no problems here. Nice to see a flavor justification for the rebound in the flavor text.
Polish
Quality (2.5/3) - In the flavor text, the attribution should be on its own line (#12 in MOQ1, half a point deducted).
Main Challenge (1.5/2) - This only meets the main challenge because of rebound, and even there it's on the border line because it doesn't create two creatures as it resolves, but only one at a time. It looks like the spirit of the main challenge was having the spell create the two creatures at the same time, so it doesn't feel like it fits perfectly.
Sub Challenges (2/2) - Both met.
Total: 22/25
Appeal (1/3) - Timmy doesn't certainly care, Spike probably does neither. This is a Johnny card at heart, both because of the effect and because of storm.
Elegance (3/3) - I see no problem here. The effect is easily understandable and the card makes sense as a whole just fine.
Development
Viability (3/3) - White can reanimate small creatures, so that is fine. Storm is in all colors so that is fine too. Reanimation spells are almost always uncommon, and this makes no exception. I don't think having storm is a problem from that point of view, so I can definitely accept this card being uncommon.
Balance (2/3) - As soon as I saw this card has storm I was a bit scared. We all know how good storm is and what R&D thinks about it. But actually I think this card can still be safe and if I'm saying this it's just because of one reason: it has a cap. You can reanimate creatures with this card only until you have creatures costing one or zero mana in your graveyard, and that is a hard limit that can't be overcome. You can't go infinite with this, or rather you can, but after you've reanimated all creatures you could reanimate, the remaining copies of this spell won't do anything. At the contrary, the storm cards that we all know as being problematic either have no cap (Tendrils of Agony) or have a meaningless one (Dragonstorm, which can only search Dragon until you have them in your deck, but if you're playing Dragonstorm chances are that you have more than enough Dragon cards in your deck to be instantly lethal). Still, we have to use a little caution when dealing with a card with storm. I don't think I'd honestly play this in my limited deck. This a card made for constructed formats, where you can exploit all its interactions at the maximum level. The bigger the card pool is the better this card will be, because there are more viable creatures to reanimate. That's why I'd expect this card to be relatively harmless in Stardard and potentially problematic in Legacy. I see no difference from all that I've said here in multiplayer. I'm not sure how many casual players would play this. I also find hard to associate the word "storm" with "fun", but as I've said in this case I don't see that huge of a problem.
Creativity
Uniqueness (2.5/3) - I searched Gatherer for all cards with storm and indeed I didn't find any reanimation effects, so this is certainly new enough.
Flavor (2/3) - The name is not only fine, but quite good. The only remark I can make about it is that it reminds me of Alara Reborn, but that's a very minor thing. Unfortunately, there's no flavor text here, even though there's more than enough room for a couple lines on the card.
Polish
Quality (3/3) - All good here.
Main Challenge (1.5/2) - Again (I'm referring to the previous card I had to judge), this card only meets the main challenge because of a keyword it has. If this hadn't storm it couldn't evercreate multiple creatures in the sense of this round's main challenge. Actually, if I cast this without having cast other spells before it in the turn, which means with a storm count fo zero, this creates only a single creature and not two. And even there, it creates it only if you have a legal creature card to target. That's why I don't feel this card perfectly fits the spirit of the main challenge, which required you to create a card that could always create two creatures, no matter what.
Sub Challenges (2/2) - Both met.
Total: 20/25
Appeal (1/3) - Timmy likes the effect but doesn't like to have to sacrifice creatures. Johnny may try to do something with this, but I don't see him doing that much. Spike likes that he can improve useless creatures into more valuable ones, but he would rather take them from the library. If he already has them in his hand, he might as well cast them. Maybe He could save mana using this, but is spending a card worth the saving in mana?
Elegance (2.5/3) - I don't see big problems here, maybe the only one being new or less experienced players not getting that you still have to sacrifice the two creatures even if this gets countered, because the sacrifice is a cost and not part of the effect. Other than that, all is good here. The fact that it's called a "duo" and involes sacrificing and creating exactly two creatures helps this card make sense as a whole.
Development
Viability (0.5/3) - I think we might have a problem here. Putting creatures from the hand directly onto the battlefield is definitely green and not red. This card should have green in its mana cost. I see this as a perfect red/green card: green provides the first part of the effect (putting creatures from your hand onto the battlefield) and red the second (haste and sacrifice at end of turn). I'm sorry but I don't find this card acceptable as a monored one. If it was printable like this, rarity would be certainly right.
Balance (1.5/3) - The fact that this requires the sacrifice of two creatures and that you have to sacrifice the creatures at end of turn implies that in two turn you will effectively have given up two creatures. Giving up resource for short term gain definitely fits red philosophically, but I think you'd play this only when you know the attack from the creatures you put onto the battlefield will be lethal. I think this wouldn't be that playable in limited, and it would be used in constructed only (or at least mainly) as a win condition. In multiplayer you will have the additional decision of which players to attack with the two creatures you put onto the battlefield, but it gets worse because the damage outcome is more diluted (you need to deal more damage to win the game). I don't see this being too frustating when played against you.
Creativity
Uniqueness (0.5/3) - It's unique but not in the good way, as its most unusual and original thing for its color breaks the color pie. The parts that don't are nothing new.
Flavor (1/3) - The name is good in that is reflects very well the mechanics of the card, but it sounds like a creature name. In fact, the "Duo" cycle from Shadowmoor are creatures (for example Tattermunge Duo). MSE also tells me one or two lines of flavor text coud have fit.
Polish
Quality (3/3) - All good here.
Main Challenge (1.5/2) - The only time this will create a single creature is when you only have one in your hand, but in that case, why did you cast this? To get board disadvantage? It doesn't look like a good idea, so even though this COULD create a single creature or no creature, you'll actually never cast it if you already know you won't be able to create two creatures. Any sane player would always cast this to create two creature, but still there is the possibility of creating no creatures or only a single one. This goes a little against the spirit of the main challenge, which asked for a card able to always create two creatures no matter what.
Sub Challenges (2/2) - Both met.
Total: 13.5/25
Appeal (1/3) - Timmy doesn't care. Johnny will love the challenges this poses in deckbuilding and gameplay. Spike doesn't like this for two reasons: he would like to always get the manifested creatures himself, and even if he somehow does this on himself he will rarely get more than one creature. How often do you see the same player controlling more than one spell on the stack? Storm or replicate come to mind, but even then, the copies aren't cards so they won't get manifested.
Elegance (1/3) - There are some problems here, and I'm not referring that much to the necessary template to manifest known cards that we also saw in FRF, rather to exiling spells directly from the stack, which is something we rarely see (the only card that comes to my mind is Mindbreak Trap) and that may be quite confusing to players, especially new or less experienced ones. I remember when I just started playing back in 2005 and I thought that Parallectric Feedback dealt damage equal to a permanent's cmc because I knew that "spell" meant "nonland card" but I thought on the battlefield.
Development
Viability (3/3) - This can be seen as a variation on Ethereal Ambush, so being green/blue looks fine. Rarity looks fine for complexity reasons alone.
Balance (1/3) - This is quite hard to use correctly, but at first impression it looks balanced enough. As I've already said, I don't see you casting this for any value of X greater than 1. I think the most common and best use for this will be as a pseudo-soft counter to something huge your opponent casts, possibly a noncreature spell, so that he or she won't be able to turn it face up again once manifested. I can't see myself playing this in my limited deck, and even in constructed I think this card wouldn't see much play in Standard, let alone larger formats. In multiplayer, there may be the interesting choice of which player to use this on. From the other side of the table, when I cast a big spell and you cast this to make me manifest it instead of resolving it, I don't think I would have much fun, to say the least.
Creativity
Uniqueness (2.5/3) - It looks like a variation on the aforementioned Ethereal Ambush, but the exiling spells makes this feel unique and fresh enough.
Flavor (1.5/3) - Name is fine. MSE tells me the text box is already filled by the rules text at normal font size, but if you shrink the font size to still acceptable values some flavor text could have fit.
Polish
Quality (3/3) - I see no problems here.
Main Challenge (1.5/2) - Rarely casting this for X greater than 1 kind of goes against the spirit of the main challenge. Yes, this COULD create two creatures, or even more (and that's why it still technically passes the main challenge), but it rarely will in actual gameplay. This goes a little against the spirit of the main challenge, which asked for a card able to always create two creatures no matter what.
Sub Challenges (2/2) - Both met. Again a card that uses X to pass subchallenge 2, even if in your case, at the contrary of a previous card, is wasn't strictly needed.
Total: 16.5/25
Appeal (1/3) - Timmy doesn't like that much sacrificing a big creature to get a lot of smaller ones. Johnny loves this card and is already brewing. I don't see Spike liking this that much, maybe if it were an instant so that he could cast it in response to removal.
Elegance (2/3) - New and less experienced players may have some problem mentally parsing the part about the sum of the converted mana costs, but other than this it's fine.
Development
Viability (3/3) - The effect is clearly black, so no problem there. I can see this at uncommon, it can't certainly be common with all the mentions of cmc involved, and it would indeed look underwhelming as a rare.
Balance (2/3) - As a sorcery it looks balanced at four mana, but that same fact of being a sorcery hurts this card's playability, as you can't play it in response to removal, as I've already mentioned. I don't see this card being played in limited, where you want your noncreature nonland cards to be either removal or combat tricks, with rare exceptions. In constructed there may be some combo deck using this somehow to put a lot of creatures onto the battlefield at once, but even if there is I certainly don't see making it beyond Standard, and even there I have my doubts. I see no problems in multiplayer or casual, except the potential comprehension complexity I've already talked about. I don't see any problem under the "fun" section too.
Creativity
Uniqueness (3/3) - I can't remember any already existing card doing something like this before. Maybe Protean Hulk, but this is certainly different enough.
Flavor (2.5/3) - The name is very good and I'm amazed at the fact that it isn't already used. It also tells a lot of flavor by itself even without flavor text, a couple lines of which would have easily fit on the card according to MSE, but the name being so good partially makes up for its absence.
Polish
Quality (2.5/3) - "creatures converted mana cost" is missing an apostrophe for the Saxon genitive (half a point deducted).
Main Challenge (1.5/2) - Again, this COULD put more than one creatures on the battlefield, and thus it technically passes the main challenge, but it isn't guaranteed to do. If you use this card to reanimate only a single creature that has the same cmc as the one you sacrifice, you're only creating one creature. This goes a little against the spirit of the main challenge, which asked for a card able to always create two creatures no matter what.
Sub Challenges (2/2) - Both met.
Total: 19.5/25
Appeal (2/3) - Timmy likes being able to put two of his big creatures onto the battlefield, but he won't always find them and doesn't like having to sacrifice one as a cost. Johnny likes this as there are a lot of things he can do with it. Spike doesn't like that it's not guaranteed to find two creatures among the top six cards, but if this proves reliable enough,he will use it.
Elegance (2.5/3) - The (very probably intentional) resemblance to Birthing Pod helps here, but it's still a bit wordy as a card.
Development
Viability (3/3) - Searching and putting creatures directly from the the library onto the battlefield is surely green, so no problem there. The comparison with Birthing Pod and the fact that the ability is repeatable and without any kind of restriction on the creatures you can find (unlike the Pod) justify this being mythic.
Balance (1.5/3) - I think this would surely get played in constructed, not as a green "must play" but there would surely be some decks trying to get advantage of this. In limited I'm not sure it's that playable. Again, you usually want the noncreature nonland cards of your limited deck to be removal spells or combat tricks, and this isn't either, even if technically you can activate the ability in response to a creature that's about to die. By the way, this also adds to the strength of this card. In casual or multiplayer, this could put a target on yourself, but other than that it's fine. It can lead to unfun experiences if and when it degenerates, just like Pod.
Creativity
Uniqueness (1.5/3) - The same comparison with Birthing Pod helped before, but hurts here. This feels like a variation on it rather than a new, unique, and fresh card.
Flavor (1.5/3) - And here the comparison with Pod helps instead. I like very much the reference to it in the name. No room for flavor text unless you shrink the font size to borderline levels.
Polish
Quality (2.5/3) - Between the words "library" and "put" there should be a period, not a comma (half a point deducted).
Main Challenge (1.5/2) - Again, this isn't guaranteed to create two creatures. It COULD do it, sure, and thus it technically still passes the main challenge, but when you activate this, you're not sure you will find two creatures. This goes a little against the spirit of the main challenge, which asked for a card able to always create two creatures no matter what.
Sub Challenges (2/2) - Both met.
Total: 18/25
PsyOp: 22
Flatline: 20
coletrain: 19.5
IcariiFA: 19.5
FreshMeat: 18
Tesco(black)lotus: 18
Sagharri: 16.5
Piar: 13.5
Vertain: 12.5
MCC - Winner (6): Oct 2014, Apr Nov 2017, Jan 2018, Apr Jun 2019 || Host (15): Dec 2014, Apr Jul Aug Dec 2015, Mar Jul Aug Oct 2016, Feb Jul 2017, Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) || Judge (34): every month from Nov 2014 to Nov 2016 except Oct 2015, every month from Feb to Jul 2017 except Apr 2017, then Oct 2017, May Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here)
CCL - Winner (3): Jul 2016 (tied with Flatline), May 2017, Jul 2019 (last one here) || Host (5): Feb 2015, Mar Apr May Jun 2016
DCC - Winner (1): Mar 2015 (tied with Piar) || Host (3): May Oct 2015, Jan 2016
• The two public custom sets I've been part a part of the design team for:
"Brotherhood of Ormos" - Blog post with all info - set thread - design skeleton / card list || "Extinctia: Homo Evanuit" - Blog post with all info - set thread - card list spreadsheet
• "The Lion's Lair", my article series about MTG and custom card design in particular. Latest article here. Here is the article index. Rather outdated by now, and based on the old MCC rubric, but I'm leaving this here for anybody that might be interested anyway.
• My only public attempt at being a writer: the story of my Leonin custom planeswalker Jeff Lionheart. (I have a very big one that I'm working on right now but that's private for now, and I don't know if I will ever actually publish it, and I also have ideas for multiple future ones, including one where I'm going to reprise Jeff.)
Enchantment {R}
Whenever a creature you control dies, put the top two cards of your library into your graveyard.
4BB, sacrifice Deathstorm: Return all creatures from your graveyard to the battlefield.
Sorcery (UC)
Target Mountain you control becomes a 4/2 red Elemental creature with trample. It's still a land.
Target Forest you control becomes a 2/4 green Elemental creature with reach. It's still a land.
"Even Zendikar itself aids us against the Eldrazi."
-Nissa Revane
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
Ugin's Presence 5
Enchantment [rare]
5: Manifest a card in your hand
5: Exile a facedown creature you control. If that card an instant or sorcery, you may cast it without paying its mana cost.
2U
Instant
Change the text of each Equipment you control by replacing all instances of "equipped creature" with "this creature" until end of turn. They become creatures with base power and toughness 3/3 until end of turn.
Instant (U)
Exile up to two cards at random from your graveyard in a face-down pile, shuffle that pile, then manifest those cards. (To manifest a card, put it onto the battlefield face down as a 2/2 creature. Turn it face up any time for its mana cost if it's a creature card.)
Instant (U)
Put three 1/1 white Warrior creature tokens onto the battlefield.
Raid - Sacrifice those creatures at the beginning of the next upkeep unless you attacked with a creature this turn.
"An ambush must be swift and brutal, but most important, it must leave no survivors."
-Zurgo, khan of the Mardu
Artifact (M)
t, Pay 1 life,Sacrifice three permanents: Reveal cards from the top of your library until you reveal two creature cards with converted mana cost less than the total converted mana cost of the sacrificed permanents. Put them onto the battlefield, then put all other cards revealed this way on the bottom of your library in a random order.
Enchantment {R}
When Soul of Gaea enters the battlefield, you may search your library for up to two creature cards with converted mana cost two or less and put them onto the battlefield.Then shuffle your library.
When Soul of Gae leaves the battlefield, destroy all creatures you control.
"With me comes life...
and death."