We have finally broken the tyrant. We have stripped him of his power, obliterated the morale of his troops, and condoned him and his army to the same life he would have forced unto us. In fact, we have done more — as punishment for his insolence, we slaughtered the families of those who opposed us and set fire to their villas. But now, as we clean our bloodies blades and tumble in our beds, can we truly say that we are still in the right?
Main Challenge: Design a card that punishes players.
Subchallenge 1: Your card does not involve opponents making choices. Subchallenge 2: Your card doesn't have the words "damage" or "life" in its rules text.
Player deadline: May 29th, 23:59 PM
Judge deadline: June 1st, 23:59 PM
A card that only punishes inaction would not qualify; only one that punishes a specific action.
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): Timmy wants to use this to punish control opponents from messing with his giants. Spike likes how crushing this effect is. Elegance (3/3): It's easy to understand.
Development Viability (2/3): This effect, while simple, feels mythic to me because of the hexproof. This is uninteractive, yet devastating; this shouldn't be showing up in draft often. Balance (2/3): As a five mana discard spell, there is some intrinstic balance to this card. While it's undeniably powerful, by turn 5 your opponent should have had plenty of time to set up, and therefore this shouldn't be so devastating that it wins the game. That said, the fact that it just sits around with hexproof and discards several cards can be unfun.
Creativity Uniqueness (1/3): It's a new take on Oppression. Flavor (2/3): The name is fine, but you could have made this card truly spectacular with some good flavor. You didn't even try to put any on there, though.
Polish Quality (3/3): Main Challenge (2/2): Sub Challenges (1/2): Your opponent chooses what card they discard, so you fail subchallenge 1.
Total: 18/25
Design Appeal (3/3): Mind control is a big enough effect that timmy will always like it. Spike loves a sick 2 for 1. Johnny wants to repeatedly reanimate this for value. Elegance (3/3): It's easy to understand.
Development Viability (3/3): Blue and rare is right on the money. Balance (3/3): The fact that you can't steal a bomb already in play hurts a little, but the fact that the stealing is permanent and that you get to choose which one you take makes me like the balance of this card a lot.
Creativity Uniqueness (2/3): It's remniscient of Grave Peril, but plays out much differently. Flavor (3/3): Good name, excellent flavor text. It just makes you want to cackle maniacly.
Polish Quality (3/3): Main Challenge (2/2): Sub Challenges (2/2):
Total: 24/25
Design Appeal (2/3): Spike wishes this was a little bit better than a Goblin Piker in combat. Timmy and Johnny appreciate defensive magic in protecting their shenanigans. Elegance (2/3): It takes a while to understand the implications of this card, but once you do it's easy enough.
Development Viability (2/3): This is probably a rare if Thalia is a measuring stick to go by. Balance (3/3): This effect is much more powerful than Thalia's (as it makes spells cost 2 more instead of 1), but it's also two-colored and doesn't have first strike.
Creativity Uniqueness (3/3): Nothing like this has been done before. Flavor (1.5/3): The name is generic, and the flavor text is decent at best.
Polish Quality (3/3): Main Challenge (2/2): Sub Challenges (2/2):
Total: 20.5/25
Design Appeal (2/3): Spike would play this in an aggressive red deck. Johnny would use this with effects like Mikokoro, Center of the Sea to abuse it. Elegance (2/3): It's not the most elegant card, but it's simple enough.
Development Viability (1/3): It turns drawing into looting, which is sort of red, but this effect is firmly in black. Balance (2/3): This is a little too silly against a lot of decks, but it's not that hard to play around and simply adds a downside to every draw spell. I will say that playing this on turn 2 against some decks will make it very likely you're going to win, though.
Creativity Uniqueness (3/3): Yeah, that's new. Flavor (1.5/3): The flavor text is poor.
Polish Quality (1.5/3): "At the beginning of each end step, each player that drew more than one card this turn..." Main Challenge (2/2): Sub Challenges (2/2):
Glyph of Treason4UU
Enchantment (R)
Whenever a creature enters the battlefield under an opponent's control, you may sacrifice Glyph of Treason. If you do, gain control of that creature. "I think I just found my champion."
Chaotic Massacre4BB
Sorcery (M)
Each opponent sacrifices two creatures at random. Even when they saw what was coming, they were still surprised by the results.
@Moss_Elemental: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think it would. The clarification says that punishing is "invoking a repercussion for a specific action", and that doesn't punish a specific action.
I'm not sure if this passes the main challenge. Although I'm thinking that if Norn's Annex passes, this must too?
Orom, the Protector
Legendary Creature - Human Soldier (M)
Spells that target cost more to cast. "I believe that people should be able to live their lives free from the interference of others."
2/1
(22 Total) - October 2014; December 2014; January 2015; April 2015; June 2015; August 2015; September 2015; November 2015; December 2015(T); January 2016; March 2016(T); April 2016; June 2016; October 2016; December 2016(T); February 2017; April 2017; December 2017; November 2018(T); January 2019; April 2019; June 2019
(8 Total) - May 2015; May 2016; June 2016; August 2016; October 2016; December 2016; October 2017; May 2019
(7 Total) - September 2015; October 2015; January 2016; March 2016; April 2016; July 2016(T); March 2019(T)
@Moss_Elemental: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think it would. The clarification says that punishing is "invoking a repercussion for a specific action", and that doesn't punish a specific action.
*sigh
I'm afraid it wasn't that clear until I read the clarification.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
Inciting AEther1R
Enchantment {R}
At the end of each player's turn, each player who drew more than one card that turn shuffles a card at random from his or her hand into his or her library. Use it or lose it.
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.
Thoughtrender3UB
Creature - Horror (R)
Hexproof
Whenever an opponent casts a spell, that player discards a card.
2/4
Design (1.5/3) Appeal - Timmy doesn't care. Johnny would like to try something with this but there aren't many cards that force opponents to cast spells. Spike loves this: it either paralyzes the opponent, if he or she doesn't want to discard, or gives him free card advantage, if he or she is willing to cast spells anyway. It's a win-win situation for him! (3/3) Elegance - All good here.
Development (2.5/3) Viability - Hexproof accounts for blue and discard for black. Perfect as far as the color pie is concerned. This may look underwhelming as a rare, but the trigger looks quite strong, so it probably just needs to be such. (1.5/3) Balance - The power and toughness are disappointing for a 5-drop, but when you start taking into account hexproof and the strong trigger, it feels way better. To put it another way, Marshall Sutcliffe would say that this fails the Vanilla Test but the text may be enough to make up for it. I say "may" because I feel this is a card which strength really depends on the format: good in Standard, and I think it would see some play in blue/black control decks there, acceptable in limited, but I don't see it getting played in Modern and older formats. Having to choose between not casting spells and repeatedly having to discard cards is definitely unfun for the opponent, and that's the main problem this card may have in casual groups. In multiplayer, this is even better because it either paralyzes or makes you gain card advantage over multiple opponents.
Creativity (2.5/3) Uniqueness - That trigger is original, but it's the only truly original part of the card. (1.5/3) Flavor - Name is fine. No flavor text even though there would be plenty of room for it, and I don't even need MSE to confirm that.
Polish (3/3) Quality - All good here. (2/2) Main Challenge - This punishes your opponents for casting spells, so it passes the main challenge in a very satisfactory way. (2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
Glyph of Treason4UU
Enchantment (R)
Whenever a creature enters the battlefield under an opponent's control, you may sacrifice Glyph of Treason. If you do, gain control of that creature. "I think I just found my champion."
Design (1.5/3) Appeal - Timmy doesn't care. Johnny likes the idea but he doesn't like to have to rely on the opponent doing something, in this case casting creatures. Spike loves getting to either steal a good creature or preventing the opponent from casting it in the first place because he or she is afraid of you stealing it. (3/3) Elegance - All good here.
Development (3/3) Viability - This is monoblue without a doubt. The "may" is what makes this card rare, if the sacrifice were mandatory you, as the opponent, could just cast a weaker creature before dropping your bomb, but with the "may" this is not possible, because you would get the opponent's bomb anyway. And don't misunderstand me, I'm glad that there is that "may"! It's both what makes the card strong enough and what gives it mechanical flavor, especially when paired with that flavor text. (1.5/3) Balance - I just said the the "may" is what makes the card strong enough, but I was talking in a vacuum. When you consider the cost, is that effect strong enough to cost six mana? Admittedly, if you consider that Mind Control alone costs five mana, you can say that this is a "Mind Control Trap", meaning both the Trap cards from Zendikar block but most of all the trap cards in Yugioh (I don't play that game but I know the basic things about it). This looks like it will play very similarly to them. Another comparison in the game we all actually love if we're here (Magic) is the Seals like Seal of Fire or Seal of Doom: a card that just stays there until it has its effect. This has a pro and a con: it adds flexibility, because it lets you choose if you want to use the effect now or later, but the opponent will know that the card is there, so he or she will be able to try to play around it somehow. In the end, I don't think this would be broken at the same mana cost of Mind Control, but the added flexibility may justify the one mana increase in cost. I don't think I'd play this in a limited deck, where there's not a lot of room for non-removal non-combat-trick cards, even if one could maybe see this as a form of removal. I can't certainly see this in constructed. In casual, I think it can see some play. It may generate unfun experiences because seeing your best creature stolen is never a good feeling from the other side of the table.
Creativity (1/3) Uniqueness - As already mentioned, this looks like a variation on the Seals, slightly different but the idea isn't that original. (2.5/3) Flavor - Name and flavor text are both good. As I read the flavor text I imagined Heliod saying it about Elspeth. It's good here, but it would be even better on a white card with Theros flavor.
Polish (3/3) Quality - All good here. (2/2) Main Challenge - This punishes opponents for casting creatures, so nothing to say here. (2/2) Subchallenges - Both met. I appreciate the very clever way of passing subchallenge 1: don't have opponents make choices, have yourself make choices! The challenge specified "opponents", so this passes it!
Orom, the Protector
Legendary Creature - Human Soldier (M)
Spells that target cost more to cast. "I believe that people should be able to live their lives free from the interference of others."
2/1
Design (2/3) Appeal - Timmy doesn't care. Johnny would probably prefer this to say "less" instead of "more" so that he could take more advantage from it (pun intended). Spike likes this very much if he manages to build a deck without targeted effects. Admittedly, that's a thing for Johnny to do. Let's put it this way: Johnny will build that deck and Spike will play it! (3/3) Elegance - All good here. Particularly appreciable the fact that this card does a lot with only a few words.
Development (2/3) Viability - I don't see much green here. Is it just because of Spellwild Ouphe? Maybe the flavor could have some green in it philosophically, because green is the color of keeping the status quo, tradition, and living your life as it naturally comes with no interference. But as MaRo often tells us (the last time in his latest column if I recall correctly), you can find flavor to justify almost anything. This feels way more white than green mechanically to me, even if there is precedent in green as I already mentioned. The effect definitely looks splashy enough to justify this being mythic. (2/3) Balance - This looks strong, because all players will have to pay the tax for a lot of things we commonly do in Magic, but being symmetrical hurts you here. You want to play a deck with less targeted effects than your opponents, but it won't always be the case, either because your strategy requires you to target or because your opponents will have decks with only few targeted effects. In an hypothetical mirror match this will probably be as useful as a vanilla 2/1 for 2 mana, which is: not at all. Let's say it's a card with a high potential: under the right conditions it will be strong, but there will be also times when that potential won't be made real. This could be playable in limited, even only for the fact that it makes opposing removal cost much more, but I don't see it in constructed. I see no big problems in casual or multiplayer, having your spells cost more may be not that fun, and this won't help there, but it still feels better than discard or counterspells, not to mention things like land destruction.
Creativity (3/3) Uniqueness - This is certainly original. The aforementioned Spellwind Ouphe is the only card I can think of with a similar effect, and it's still quite different because this affects all spells that target, not only spells that target Orom itself. (3/3) Flavor - The name is good. The flavor text is very good in itself, and it also helps making this feel green, but again, you can find good flavor for almost anything.
Polish (3/3) Quality - All good here. (2/2) Main Challenge - This punishes all players (including you, but this doesn't matter given the way the challenge is worded) for casting targeted spells, and this is definitely more than enough. (2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
Inciting AEther1R
Enchantment {R}
At the end of each player's turn, each player who drew more than one card that turn shuffles a card at random from his or her hand into his or her library. Use it or lose it.
Design (1/3) Appeal - Timmy and Johnny don't care. Spike likes the fact that this will prevent opponents from getting too much card advantage. (2/3) Elegance - The wording is not that understandable at a glance but it's the clearest it can be and after reading it a couple times you get it.
Development (3/3) Viability - This hoses drawing cards, which is primary blue, so it makes sense to have this effect in one of blue's enemy colors. Red also is in need of additional effects, and ones like this card feel like a welcome addition there. Rarity looks right, I wouldn't like to see this at anything below rare, at least because of complexity. (1/3) Balance - It's quite hard to judge the power level on this, partly because it heavily depends on the deck you're playing against. If you're playing against a control decks that relies on card advantage spells to get the lead in the late game, this will be quite strong, but if you're playing against an aggro deck that only has a few draw spell or none at all this will be a blank for you. In that, it looks like a sideboard card against control, but if you're bringing out cards that do actual damage to your opponent to bring this in, I'm not sure how wise of a sideboard strategy that would be. I certainly wouldn't play this in limited, and I've just said that In constructed I only see this as a sideboard option. In casual, this could be played by players who for some reason really hate blue decks, but I don't see this getting much play there. This won't be that fun for control players, but that's not that much of a problem.
Creativity (3/3) Uniqueness - I can't remember any card with the phrase "who drew more than one card that turn". (1/3) Flavor - The name is acceptable. The flavor text really feels uninspired.
Polish (2/3) Quality - The "AE" in the name should be "Æ", which you can find in Windows character map, or copy it from anywhere on the internet. I'm not deducting points for this because it's just a matter of formatting, but I have to signal this. What I'm deducting points for, instead, is the trigger: in post M10 wording that should be "At the beginning of each player's end step", and it should be known by know, so I'm deducting a whole point. (2/2) Main Challenge - This punishes everyone for drawing more than the card you draw during your draw step. That passes the main challenge in a totally satisfying way. (2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
MCC - Winner (6): Oct 2014, Apr Nov 2017, Jan 2018, Apr Jun 2019 || Host (15): Dec 2014, Apr Jul Aug Dec 2015, Mar Jul Aug Oct 2016, Feb Jul 2017, Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) || Judge (34): every month from Nov 2014 to Nov 2016 except Oct 2015, every month from Feb to Jul 2017 except Apr 2017, then Oct 2017, May Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) CCL - Winner (3): Jul 2016 (tied with Flatline), May 2017, Jul 2019 (last one here) || Host (5): Feb 2015, Mar Apr May Jun 2016 DCC - Winner (1): Mar 2015 (tied with Piar) || Host (3): May Oct 2015, Jan 2016
• The two public custom sets I've been part a part of the design team for: "Brotherhood of Ormos" - Blog post with all info - set thread - design skeleton / card list || "Extinctia: Homo Evanuit" - Blog post with all info - set thread - card list spreadsheet
• "The Lion's Lair", my article series about MTG and custom card design in particular. Latest article here. Here is the article index.Rather outdated by now, and based on the old MCC rubric, but I'm leaving this here for anybody that might be interested anyway.
• My only public attempt at being a writer: the story of my Leonin custom planeswalker Jeff Lionheart. (I have a very big one that I'm working on right now but that's private for now, and I don't know if I will ever actually publish it, and I also have ideas for multiple future ones, including one where I'm going to reprise Jeff.)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
We have finally broken the tyrant. We have stripped him of his power, obliterated the morale of his troops, and condoned him and his army to the same life he would have forced unto us. In fact, we have done more — as punishment for his insolence, we slaughtered the families of those who opposed us and set fire to their villas. But now, as we clean our bloodies blades and tumble in our beds, can we truly say that we are still in the right?
Main Challenge: Design a card that punishes players.
Subchallenge 1: Your card does not involve opponents making choices.
Subchallenge 2: Your card doesn't have the words "damage" or "life" in its rules text.
Player deadline: May 29th, 23:59 PM
Judge deadline: June 1st, 23:59 PM
A card that only punishes inaction would not qualify; only one that punishes a specific action.
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
FortiutousEntity
Bravelion83
Tilwin
Moss_Elemental
Flatline
sperlman
RaikouRider
Design
Appeal (2/3): Timmy wants to use this to punish control opponents from messing with his giants. Spike likes how crushing this effect is.
Elegance (3/3): It's easy to understand.
Development
Viability (2/3): This effect, while simple, feels mythic to me because of the hexproof. This is uninteractive, yet devastating; this shouldn't be showing up in draft often.
Balance (2/3): As a five mana discard spell, there is some intrinstic balance to this card. While it's undeniably powerful, by turn 5 your opponent should have had plenty of time to set up, and therefore this shouldn't be so devastating that it wins the game. That said, the fact that it just sits around with hexproof and discards several cards can be unfun.
Creativity
Uniqueness (1/3): It's a new take on Oppression.
Flavor (2/3): The name is fine, but you could have made this card truly spectacular with some good flavor. You didn't even try to put any on there, though.
Polish
Quality (3/3):
Main Challenge (2/2):
Sub Challenges (1/2): Your opponent chooses what card they discard, so you fail subchallenge 1.
Total: 18/25
Design
Appeal (3/3): Mind control is a big enough effect that timmy will always like it. Spike loves a sick 2 for 1. Johnny wants to repeatedly reanimate this for value.
Elegance (3/3): It's easy to understand.
Development
Viability (3/3): Blue and rare is right on the money.
Balance (3/3): The fact that you can't steal a bomb already in play hurts a little, but the fact that the stealing is permanent and that you get to choose which one you take makes me like the balance of this card a lot.
Creativity
Uniqueness (2/3): It's remniscient of Grave Peril, but plays out much differently.
Flavor (3/3): Good name, excellent flavor text. It just makes you want to cackle maniacly.
Polish
Quality (3/3):
Main Challenge (2/2):
Sub Challenges (2/2):
Total: 24/25
Design
Appeal (2/3): Spike wishes this was a little bit better than a Goblin Piker in combat. Timmy and Johnny appreciate defensive magic in protecting their shenanigans.
Elegance (2/3): It takes a while to understand the implications of this card, but once you do it's easy enough.
Development
Viability (2/3): This is probably a rare if Thalia is a measuring stick to go by.
Balance (3/3): This effect is much more powerful than Thalia's (as it makes spells cost 2 more instead of 1), but it's also two-colored and doesn't have first strike.
Creativity
Uniqueness (3/3): Nothing like this has been done before.
Flavor (1.5/3): The name is generic, and the flavor text is decent at best.
Polish
Quality (3/3):
Main Challenge (2/2):
Sub Challenges (2/2):
Total: 20.5/25
Design
Appeal (2/3): Spike would play this in an aggressive red deck. Johnny would use this with effects like Mikokoro, Center of the Sea to abuse it.
Elegance (2/3): It's not the most elegant card, but it's simple enough.
Development
Viability (1/3): It turns drawing into looting, which is sort of red, but this effect is firmly in black.
Balance (2/3): This is a little too silly against a lot of decks, but it's not that hard to play around and simply adds a downside to every draw spell. I will say that playing this on turn 2 against some decks will make it very likely you're going to win, though.
Creativity
Uniqueness (3/3): Yeah, that's new.
Flavor (1.5/3): The flavor text is poor.
Polish
Quality (1.5/3): "At the beginning of each end step, each player that drew more than one card this turn..."
Main Challenge (2/2):
Sub Challenges (2/2):
Total: 17/25
Creature - Horror (R)
Hexproof
Whenever an opponent casts a spell, that player discards a card.
2/4
I know it says I edited after the deadline, that was just deleting the "likely to change later" that I had above the card.
Enchantment (R)
Whenever a creature enters the battlefield under an opponent's control, you may sacrifice Glyph of Treason. If you do, gain control of that creature.
"I think I just found my champion."
Sorcery (M)
Each opponent sacrifices two creatures at random.
Even when they saw what was coming, they were still surprised by the results.
Orom, the Protector
Legendary Creature - Human Soldier (M)
Spells that target cost more to cast.
"I believe that people should be able to live their lives free from the interference of others."
2/1
I'm afraid it wasn't that clear until I read the clarification.
Enchantment {R}
At the end of each player's turn, each player who drew more than one card that turn shuffles a card at random from his or her hand into his or her library.
Use it or lose it.
Emille, Seven-Sting Dancer Shalin Nariya
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.
sperlman
Design
(1.5/3) Appeal - Timmy doesn't care. Johnny would like to try something with this but there aren't many cards that force opponents to cast spells. Spike loves this: it either paralyzes the opponent, if he or she doesn't want to discard, or gives him free card advantage, if he or she is willing to cast spells anyway. It's a win-win situation for him!
(3/3) Elegance - All good here.
Development
(2.5/3) Viability - Hexproof accounts for blue and discard for black. Perfect as far as the color pie is concerned. This may look underwhelming as a rare, but the trigger looks quite strong, so it probably just needs to be such.
(1.5/3) Balance - The power and toughness are disappointing for a 5-drop, but when you start taking into account hexproof and the strong trigger, it feels way better. To put it another way, Marshall Sutcliffe would say that this fails the Vanilla Test but the text may be enough to make up for it. I say "may" because I feel this is a card which strength really depends on the format: good in Standard, and I think it would see some play in blue/black control decks there, acceptable in limited, but I don't see it getting played in Modern and older formats. Having to choose between not casting spells and repeatedly having to discard cards is definitely unfun for the opponent, and that's the main problem this card may have in casual groups. In multiplayer, this is even better because it either paralyzes or makes you gain card advantage over multiple opponents.
Creativity
(2.5/3) Uniqueness - That trigger is original, but it's the only truly original part of the card.
(1.5/3) Flavor - Name is fine. No flavor text even though there would be plenty of room for it, and I don't even need MSE to confirm that.
Polish
(3/3) Quality - All good here.
(2/2) Main Challenge - This punishes your opponents for casting spells, so it passes the main challenge in a very satisfactory way.
(2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
Total: 19.5/25
Design
(1.5/3) Appeal - Timmy doesn't care. Johnny likes the idea but he doesn't like to have to rely on the opponent doing something, in this case casting creatures. Spike loves getting to either steal a good creature or preventing the opponent from casting it in the first place because he or she is afraid of you stealing it.
(3/3) Elegance - All good here.
Development
(3/3) Viability - This is monoblue without a doubt. The "may" is what makes this card rare, if the sacrifice were mandatory you, as the opponent, could just cast a weaker creature before dropping your bomb, but with the "may" this is not possible, because you would get the opponent's bomb anyway. And don't misunderstand me, I'm glad that there is that "may"! It's both what makes the card strong enough and what gives it mechanical flavor, especially when paired with that flavor text.
(1.5/3) Balance - I just said the the "may" is what makes the card strong enough, but I was talking in a vacuum. When you consider the cost, is that effect strong enough to cost six mana? Admittedly, if you consider that Mind Control alone costs five mana, you can say that this is a "Mind Control Trap", meaning both the Trap cards from Zendikar block but most of all the trap cards in Yugioh (I don't play that game but I know the basic things about it). This looks like it will play very similarly to them. Another comparison in the game we all actually love if we're here (Magic) is the Seals like Seal of Fire or Seal of Doom: a card that just stays there until it has its effect. This has a pro and a con: it adds flexibility, because it lets you choose if you want to use the effect now or later, but the opponent will know that the card is there, so he or she will be able to try to play around it somehow. In the end, I don't think this would be broken at the same mana cost of Mind Control, but the added flexibility may justify the one mana increase in cost. I don't think I'd play this in a limited deck, where there's not a lot of room for non-removal non-combat-trick cards, even if one could maybe see this as a form of removal. I can't certainly see this in constructed. In casual, I think it can see some play. It may generate unfun experiences because seeing your best creature stolen is never a good feeling from the other side of the table.
Creativity
(1/3) Uniqueness - As already mentioned, this looks like a variation on the Seals, slightly different but the idea isn't that original.
(2.5/3) Flavor - Name and flavor text are both good. As I read the flavor text I imagined Heliod saying it about Elspeth. It's good here, but it would be even better on a white card with Theros flavor.
Polish
(3/3) Quality - All good here.
(2/2) Main Challenge - This punishes opponents for casting creatures, so nothing to say here.
(2/2) Subchallenges - Both met. I appreciate the very clever way of passing subchallenge 1: don't have opponents make choices, have yourself make choices! The challenge specified "opponents", so this passes it!
Total: 19.5/25
Design
(2/3) Appeal - Timmy doesn't care. Johnny would probably prefer this to say "less" instead of "more" so that he could take more advantage from it (pun intended). Spike likes this very much if he manages to build a deck without targeted effects. Admittedly, that's a thing for Johnny to do. Let's put it this way: Johnny will build that deck and Spike will play it!
(3/3) Elegance - All good here. Particularly appreciable the fact that this card does a lot with only a few words.
Development
(2/3) Viability - I don't see much green here. Is it just because of Spellwild Ouphe? Maybe the flavor could have some green in it philosophically, because green is the color of keeping the status quo, tradition, and living your life as it naturally comes with no interference. But as MaRo often tells us (the last time in his latest column if I recall correctly), you can find flavor to justify almost anything. This feels way more white than green mechanically to me, even if there is precedent in green as I already mentioned. The effect definitely looks splashy enough to justify this being mythic.
(2/3) Balance - This looks strong, because all players will have to pay the tax for a lot of things we commonly do in Magic, but being symmetrical hurts you here. You want to play a deck with less targeted effects than your opponents, but it won't always be the case, either because your strategy requires you to target or because your opponents will have decks with only few targeted effects. In an hypothetical mirror match this will probably be as useful as a vanilla 2/1 for 2 mana, which is: not at all. Let's say it's a card with a high potential: under the right conditions it will be strong, but there will be also times when that potential won't be made real. This could be playable in limited, even only for the fact that it makes opposing removal cost much more, but I don't see it in constructed. I see no big problems in casual or multiplayer, having your spells cost more may be not that fun, and this won't help there, but it still feels better than discard or counterspells, not to mention things like land destruction.
Creativity
(3/3) Uniqueness - This is certainly original. The aforementioned Spellwind Ouphe is the only card I can think of with a similar effect, and it's still quite different because this affects all spells that target, not only spells that target Orom itself.
(3/3) Flavor - The name is good. The flavor text is very good in itself, and it also helps making this feel green, but again, you can find good flavor for almost anything.
Polish
(3/3) Quality - All good here.
(2/2) Main Challenge - This punishes all players (including you, but this doesn't matter given the way the challenge is worded) for casting targeted spells, and this is definitely more than enough.
(2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
Total: 22/25
Design
(1/3) Appeal - Timmy and Johnny don't care. Spike likes the fact that this will prevent opponents from getting too much card advantage.
(2/3) Elegance - The wording is not that understandable at a glance but it's the clearest it can be and after reading it a couple times you get it.
Development
(3/3) Viability - This hoses drawing cards, which is primary blue, so it makes sense to have this effect in one of blue's enemy colors. Red also is in need of additional effects, and ones like this card feel like a welcome addition there. Rarity looks right, I wouldn't like to see this at anything below rare, at least because of complexity.
(1/3) Balance - It's quite hard to judge the power level on this, partly because it heavily depends on the deck you're playing against. If you're playing against a control decks that relies on card advantage spells to get the lead in the late game, this will be quite strong, but if you're playing against an aggro deck that only has a few draw spell or none at all this will be a blank for you. In that, it looks like a sideboard card against control, but if you're bringing out cards that do actual damage to your opponent to bring this in, I'm not sure how wise of a sideboard strategy that would be. I certainly wouldn't play this in limited, and I've just said that In constructed I only see this as a sideboard option. In casual, this could be played by players who for some reason really hate blue decks, but I don't see this getting much play there. This won't be that fun for control players, but that's not that much of a problem.
Creativity
(3/3) Uniqueness - I can't remember any card with the phrase "who drew more than one card that turn".
(1/3) Flavor - The name is acceptable. The flavor text really feels uninspired.
Polish
(2/3) Quality - The "AE" in the name should be "Æ", which you can find in Windows character map, or copy it from anywhere on the internet. I'm not deducting points for this because it's just a matter of formatting, but I have to signal this. What I'm deducting points for, instead, is the trigger: in post M10 wording that should be "At the beginning of each player's end step", and it should be known by know, so I'm deducting a whole point.
(2/2) Main Challenge - This punishes everyone for drawing more than the card you draw during your draw step. That passes the main challenge in a totally satisfying way.
(2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
Total: 17/25
Flatline: 22
sperlman: 19.5
Moss_Elemental: 19.5
RaikouRider: 17
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.)