The challenges this month were inspired by Monty Python... in some way.
December MCC Round 3:
!!!
Certainly got that stuck in my head.
Main Challenge: Design a card that uses the same word (your choice) at least four times. See clarifications for more.
Subchallenge 1: No keyword abilities.
Subchallenge 2: Is uncommon or rare.
Challenge: The word could be in its name, its card text and its flavour text. You can have plural forms of the word, but no other forms. Finally, don't take the easy way and choose a short word like articles (a, the, an, etc...) as your word of choice.
Your chosen word can't be part of a longer word, so "men" in "Seamen" doesn't count.
Subchallenge 1: You can use ability words, such as hellbent, threshold, etc.
Some questions that came to my mind:
(i) "You can have plural forms of the word, but no other forms." Does it mean "attack", "attacks", and "attacking" count as different words?
(ii) How about homonyms? (Ambiguity, or "this turn" and "turn face down")
(iii) Does subchallenge 1 mean it shouldn't have keyword abilities, or shouldn't mention keyword abilities at all?
(i)Yes.
(ii)Homonyms are good.
(iii)Should not have any keyword abilities mentioned anywhere in the card text.
(X/3) Appeal: Do the different player psychographics (Timmy/Johhny/Spike) have a use for the card? (X/3) Elegance: Is the card easily understandable at a glance? Do all the flavor and mechanics combined as a whole make sense?
Development - (X/3) Viability: How well does the card fit into the color wheel? Does it break or bend the rules of the game? Is it the appropriate rarity? (X/3) Balance: Does the card have a power level appropriate for contemporary constructed/limited environments without breaking them? Does it play well in casual and multiplayer formats? Does it create or fit into a deck/archetype? Does it create an oppressive environment?
Creativity - (X/3) Uniqueness: Has a card like this ever been printed before? Does it use new mechanics, ideas, or design space? Does it combine old ideas in a new way? Overall, does it feel “fresh”? (X/3) Flavor: Does the name seem realistic for a card? Does the flavor text sound professional? Do all the flavor elements synch together to please Vorthos players?
Polish - (X/3) Quality: Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating. (X/2) *Main Challenge: Was the main challenge satisfied? Was it approached in a unique or interesting way? Does the card fit the intent of the challenge? (X/2) Subchallenges: One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Total: X/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
DEADLINES In green, the next deadline to come.
In blue, further future deadlines to come.
In red, past deadlines.
Player deadline: Friday, January 22nd 2016 23:59 EDT
Judge deadline: Monday, January 25th 2016 23:59 EDT
Siege Ram4
Artifact Creature - Construct (R)
Siege Ram can't attack alone.
Whenever Siege Ram and at least two other creatures attack, attacking creatures you control get +1/+0 until end of turn.
Whenever Siege Ram and at least three other creatures attack, you may have creatures you control assign their combat damage this turn as though they weren't blocked. "Ram! Ram! Ram!" — Balduvian Warcry
2/5
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
Hand of Ashiok2BB
Creature - Nightmare (R)
Whenever Hand of Ashiok deals damage to a player, that player exiles a card at random from his or her hand.
Each opponent's maximum hand size is reduced by the number of cards exiled by Hand of Ashiok. It supplants itself into cherished memories, defiling them completely.
2/6
Goblin Gobbler2RR
Creature - Beast (U)
Sacrifice a Goblin: Goblin Gobbler gets +2/+2 until end of turn. Target creature can't block it this turn. Goblin gobblers generally gobble goblins gluttonously.
2/2
Master Alchemist(U/R)
Creature - Human Wizard (Rare) T: Exile target artifact card from a graveyard. Add 2 to your mana pool. U, T: Exile target instant card from a graveyard. Counter target noncreature spell unless its controller pays 2. R, T: Exile target sorcery card from a graveyard. Exile the top two cards of your library. Until end of turn, you may play cards exiled this way.
1/2
This seems like a cheap way to pass the challenge, but it does right?
Voidflux Chasm
Land (R)
Voidflux Chasm enters the battlefield tapped.
: Add to your mana pool. Landfall — Whenever a land enters the battlefield under your control, if it isn't named Voidflux Chasm, exile Voidflux Chasm, then return it to the battlefield under its owner's control.
(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)
Block Golem3
Artifact Creature - Golem (U)
Creatures with power less than or equal to Block Golem's power can't block it. T: Put a +1/+1 counter on Block Golem.
2/2
Judgments complete, not final until deadline. Very close scores this time.
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.
Ulamog’s Hunger2UB
Sorcery (R)
Each opponent exiles the top card of his or her library, a card from his or her graveyard, and a card from his or her hand.
Draw a card. It devours everything and everywhere.
This would have devoid if it weren't for subchallenge 1.
Master Alchemist(U/R)
Creature - Human Wizard (Rare) T: Exile target artifact card from a graveyard. Add 2 to your mana pool. U, T: Exile target instant card from a graveyard. Counter target noncreature spell unless its controller pays 2. R, T: Exile target sorcery card from a graveyard. Exile the top two cards of your library. Until end of turn, you may play cards exiled this way.
1/2
Design (2/3) Appeal - Timmy doesn't care. This card does so much there will certainly be something for Johnny to do, probably involving recurring mana generation with the first ability. Spike loves the flexibility of this card. (2.5/3) Elegance - Wordy, but all effects are very clear. The obvious anchoring to Deathrite Shaman also helps make this more easily understandable.
Development (3/3) Viability - Blue and red are the color that interact the most with artifacts, and blue can also generate mana out of it, while for red the mana generation may be a slight bend but it still has rituals and such so it's still well within bounds. Blue and red are also the colors that have the most interactions with instants and sorceries, and when you have to divide them blue gets instants and red gets sorceries. Countering spells is obviously blue, and impulsive draw is red. In the end, everything is fine. Rarity feels right: too powerful and flexible for uncommon, and not splashy enough for mythic. Also, the aforementioned Deathrite Shaman is conveniently rare. (3/3) Balance - This is clearly playable in limited and in Standard. I wonder if it would meet the same fate as Deathrite Shaman in Modern (aka banned), even if I tend to think it would not. Still, the high flexibility is there so I can't exclude that. Anyway, this is certainly a card that would totally get the attention of competitive tournament players. I see no big problems in casual or multiplayer, seeing your spells countered is never fun, but here you will totally see it coming, so you'll be fully able to play around it.
Creativity (1/3) Uniqueness - This is the one point in the rubric where the anchoring to Deathrite Shaman works against you. This is a nice variation on the Shaman, but the inspiration is obvious and evident. (1.5/3) Flavor - The name is fine and fits with the concept. No room for flavor text.
Polish (2.5/3) Quality - OGW is out and its rules changes are in full effect. The first ability here should use the new colorless mana symbol: "Add CC to your mana pool." (half a point deducted for now, because it's still a new thing) (2/2) Main Challenge - The word "exile" is repeated four times. That's good. (2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
Knight of Loyalty1WW
Creature - Human Knight (R)
Knight of Loyalty gets +1/+1 for each loyalty counter on planeswalkers you control.
Whenever Knight of Loyalty deals combat damage to a player, put a loyalty counter on target planeswalker you control. "Honor and loyalty are his sword and armor."
2/2
Design (2/3) Appeal - Timmy likes a creature that gets huge for playing planeswalkers, which is something he wants to do anyway. I don't see much for Johnny here, maybe something involving recurring the triggered ability but it looks like a bit of a stretch. Spike likes an undercosted potential fatty that gives a bonus to his planeswalkers. (3/3) Elegance - I see no problems here.
Development (1.5/3) Viability - As with every new effect, we have to consider where to put it in the color pie. White feels like the best choice to me both philosophically and mechanically. I'd really like to see this at mythic, both for the uniqueness of the effects and mostly for the power level. (1/3) Balance - I'll admit, I'm worried about this. Thank goodness it doesn't have built-in trample or evasion. Even with a single planeswalker already out, which isn't hard to do at all, this will be something like a 5/5 or 6/6 for three mana when you play it. And then when it hits it becomes even bigger from the loyalty counters he puts. This looks very scary not only in a "superfriends" kind of deck, but also in a deck that just happens to run enough copies of planeswalkers, especially cheap ones. It won't hurt limited for certain, as it will most often just be a 2/2 there (all planeswalkers are mythic by default), but I am concerned about the effect this might have in constructed formats, including casual ones.
Creativity (3/3) Uniqueness - You could say many things about this card, but you couldn't say it isn't unique. (2/3) Flavor - The flavor definitely works well, the name may feel a bit generic though, like if it were there just to pass the challenge. I'm not saying it doesn't work though.
Polish (3/3) Quality - All good here. (2/2) Main Challenge - The word "knight" is repeated four times and "loyalty" six times. One would have been enough, unfortunately there's no bonus points for that. Style points for sure, but those aren't a thing here! (2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
Block Golem3
Artifact Creature - Golem (U)
Creatures with power less than or equal to Block Golem's power can't block it. T: Put a +1/+1 counter on Block Golem.
2/2
Design (2/3) Appeal - Timmy can appreciate a creature that grows and that's hard to block, but he doesn't like that he has to choose between attacking with it and growing it. Johnny may try something with +1/+1 counters, but that feels like a stretch. Spike just probably wishes this was Hangarback Walker, but he still likes it enough. (3/3) Elegance - I see no problems here.
Development (2/3) Viability - The first ability has always been green and without the "equal to". The "equal to" is not a problem, and might actually be a nice variation, but do we want to give this ability to all colors? It doesn't look problematic, but that's something to keep in mind. All colors get access to +1/+1 counters, so that's good. It could probably work as a powerful uncommon but I really think this is more appropriate for a rare. It's true this is probably not as strong as the aforementioned Hangarback Walker, but I still think you wouldn't want to see this too often in limited. (2.5/3) Balance - This certainly playable in limited, not sure about constructed. It might make a splash in Standard, but I don't think it would see widespread play. I see no problems in casual or multiplayer.
Creativity (1/3) Uniqueness - The similarity to Hangarback Walker and the outlast mechanic from KTK hurt here. The nice variation in the first ability is still worth something but not too much. (1.5/3) Flavor - The name works with the concept. No flavor text even though there is plenty of room for it.
Polish (3/3) Quality - All good here. (2/2) Main Challenge - The word "Golem" is repeated four times. That's good. (2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
Voidflux Chasm
Land (R)
Voidflux Chasm enters the battlefield tapped.
: Add to your mana pool. Landfall — Whenever a land enters the battlefield under your control, if it isn't named Voidflux Chasm, exile Voidflux Chasm, then return it to the battlefield under its owner's control.
Design (1.5/3) Appeal - Timmy doesn't care. Johnny loves this, he can exploit the landfall flicker ability in so many ways. Spike likes this too, but he would have liked it even better if it had a way of entering untapped after the flicker. (2.5/3) Elegance - The landfall ability doesn't work when this land enters the battlefield, that's very clear for those who know the rules, but it may have not been so clear for new or less experienced players. You solved this in a very elegant manner, with the intervening if check on the card name (that also works for preventing unintended loops), eliminating all potential confusion.
Development (2.5/3) Viability - This may look like a small bleed, as flickering is white and blue while here all colors can use this. Still, the interaction of this with other permanents' landfall abilities in any color is too nice to be ignored, and gives a reason for the bleed that looks valid enough. I've already mentioned the intervening if clause going a long way towards making this card viable to print. Rarity is obviously right, you don't want this at uncommon in an environment with landfall to be abused, and it's not splashy enough for mythic. (2/3) Balance - The use for this card is obviously that of getting more landfall triggers out of other permanents for each land drop you make. That's a good intent that looks very strong in limited, and that's why this is rightly rare. I'd play this in limited if I have a landfall deck, like the red/green limited archetype in BFZ block, but probably not otherwise. The same is essentially true in constructed: you'd play this only if you have enough landfall interactions in your deck. I see no particular problems in casual or multiplayer.
Creativity (2.5/3) Uniqueness - Landfall has never been on a land before, so this feels quite original. It's still not a new ability though. (1.5/3) Flavor - The name is fine. No flavor text.
Polish (3/3) Quality - All good here. (2/2) Main Challenge - The card name is repeated four times. That's good. (2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
MCC - Winner (6): Oct 2014, Apr Nov 2017, Jan 2018, Apr Jun 2019 || Host (15): Dec 2014, Apr Jul Aug Dec 2015, Mar Jul Aug Oct 2016, Feb Jul 2017, Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) || Judge (34): every month from Nov 2014 to Nov 2016 except Oct 2015, every month from Feb to Jul 2017 except Apr 2017, then Oct 2017, May Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) CCL - Winner (3): Jul 2016 (tied with Flatline), May 2017, Jul 2019 (last one here) || Host (5): Feb 2015, Mar Apr May Jun 2016 DCC - Winner (1): Mar 2015 (tied with Piar) || Host (3): May Oct 2015, Jan 2016
• The two public custom sets I've been part a part of the design team for: "Brotherhood of Ormos" - Blog post with all info - set thread - design skeleton / card list || "Extinctia: Homo Evanuit" - Blog post with all info - set thread - card list spreadsheet
• "The Lion's Lair", my article series about MTG and custom card design in particular. Latest article here. Here is the article index.Rather outdated by now, and based on the old MCC rubric, but I'm leaving this here for anybody that might be interested anyway.
• My only public attempt at being a writer: the story of my Leonin custom planeswalker Jeff Lionheart. (I have a very big one that I'm working on right now but that's private for now, and I don't know if I will ever actually publish it, and I also have ideas for multiple future ones, including one where I'm going to reprise Jeff.)
Mother of Invasion5CC
Creature - Eldrazi (M)
Whenever you cast a colorless spell, you may pay 1. If you do, put a 1/1 colorless Eldrazi Scion creature token onto the battlefield. It has "Sacrifice this creature: Add C to your mana pool." (C represents colorless mana.)
Other colorless creatures you control get +4/+4 as long as you control five or more colorless creatures.
5/6
Knight of Loyalty1WW
Creature - Human Knight (R)
Knight of Loyalty gets +1/+1 for each loyalty counter on planeswalkers you control.
Whenever Knight of Loyalty deals combat damage to a player, put a loyalty counter on target planeswalker you control. "Honor and loyalty are his sword and armor."
2/2
Blazing Reaction2RR
Enchantment (R)
Whenever an instant or sorcery spell you control deals damage to a player, Blazing Reaction deals that much damage to target creature or planeswalker he or she controls.
Whenever an instant or sorcery spell you control deals damage to a creature or planeswalker, Blazing Reaction deals that much damage to that creature or planeswalker's controller.
(1.5/3) Appeal: Johnny likes it. Spike might like it.
(2/3) Elegance: I find the card lacks synergy. When I first read the second line, I thought it did damage “to that permanent's controller.” I was expecting it, in fact.
Development -
(2/3) Viability: Nowadays, the wording would not be “Whenever an instant or sorcery spell you control deals damage to a player...” Instead, it would be “Whenever an instant or sorcery spell you control deals damage to an opponent...”
(2/3) Balance: You play Lightning Bolt and a creature or planeswalker gets 6 damage. That's just too much for one mana. I think you should pay mana for the extra damage or make the cast cost higher.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: It's Satyr Firedancer without legs and adds insult to injury to creatures.
(2/3) Flavor: Not too crazy about the name.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: No problems here.
(2/2) Main Challenge: Met.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both met.
Total: 18.5/25
Word: Hand
Design -
(1/3) Appeal: Johnny might play with it. That's about it.
(3/3) Elegance: No problems here.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: No problems here.
(2/3) Balance: Its best defense is its high toughness. I think for its abilities, it should have had some form of evasion. Yes, I know about the subchallenge, but, sometimes taking a chance might pay off.
Creativity -
(3/3) Uniqueness: It certainly feels new.
(3/3) Flavor: No problems here.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: No problems found.
(2/2) Main Challenge: Met
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both met.
Total: 22/25
Word: Exile
Design -
(2/3) Appeal: Johnny and Spike likes it.
(3/3) Elegance: No problems here.
Development -
(2/3) Viability: There will be players asking if they can play the sorcery card along with the other two cards.
(2/3) Balance: I don't think this would be banned in Modern like Deathrite Shaman, I think it's a little strong. Getting two mana may be a bit much, even if you need an artifact card in a graveyard.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: This is clearly inspired by Deathrite Shaman.
(3/3) Flavor: No problems here.
Polish -
(2/3) Quality: CC instead of 2.
(2/2) Main Challenge: Met
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both met.
Total: 20/25
Word: Knight or Loyalty.
Design -
(2/3) Appeal: Timmy would love this, as would Spike.
(3/3) Elegance: No problems here.
Development -
(2/3) Viability: I think this should be mythic rare.
(1/3) Balance: There are planeswalkers whose starting loyalty is as high as 7. So it's possible to have your card enter the battlefield as a 9/9 for just three mana. With that, I think the mana cost should be higher. Much higher. Especially since it can add loyalty counters to your planeswalkers.
Creativity -
(3/3) Uniqueness: Not too many creatures that care about planeswalkers.
(3/3) Flavor: No problems here.
Polish -
(2.5/3) Quality: I find the quotation marks are unnecessary unless it was attributed to someone.
(2/2) Main Challenge: Met
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both met.
Total: 20.5/25
As always, no complaints, no arguments and it's not final until the deadline has passed.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
(3/3) Appeal: Good size potential for Timmy, great for untap ability abuse for Johnny, and probably grows fast enough for Spike's liking.
(3/3) Elegance: Everything fits together well. There's easily understandable tension in between tapping for the ability and wanting to attack, which makes for good gameplay.
Development -
(2/3) Viability: Artifact feels right - besides it being a Golem there's the Chronomaton precedent - but this would more likely be rare than uncommon. It just is too much of a huge Limited threat otherwise.
(2.5/3) Balance: This is a pretty strong beater. Too strong? Well, it certainly beats out the curves of a few decks, but any abusive trick with it is almost too janky to be worth it (Freed from the Real abuse takes a lot of mana and is fragile).
Creativity -
(1.5/3) Uniqueness: It's a souped-up Chronomaton ability plus somewhat well-used evasion, but their interplay is somewhat unique.
(2/3) Flavor: Amusing name, but it'd probably be called Cinderblock Golem if not for this challenge. Evocative Lego-esque flavor! Could use flavor text; certainly has room.
(2/3) Appeal: Timmy's not using it unless they're a Timmy-Johnny and have a reaaaaally big combo planned out, but this is a Johnny-Spike card to the core.
(2/3) Elegance: Gets its point across but uses a lot of awkward words to do so. You also sort of misuse landfall here.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: Kind of surprised this wasn't in any Zendikar sets.
(1.5/3) Balance: Entering the battlefield tapped helps the balance of this quite a lot, but it's still highly suspect. In multiples in concert with Amulet of Vigor, it's a little nutty. And... there's a reason why Oboro, Palace in the Clouds is such an expensive card.
Creativity -
(2.5/3) Uniqueness: Apart from slight similarity to Oboro, as mentioned, there's nothing quite like this.
(2/3) Flavor: This is... Eldrazi-related? I think? With a name like "Voidflux" it does sound that way, but it's hard to tell for sure. Also no flavor text.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Seems okay.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: You got it.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Has landfall, but that's an ability word, not a keyword.
Total: 20/25
Design -
(3/3) Appeal: Timmy's obviously into it, Johnny might try something lulzy with a bunch of Ornithopters, Memnites, and Phyrexian Walkers, and certain Spikes could use it as a finisher.
(2/3) Elegance: There's a lot of text on this, which is certainly forgivable considering it's got two closely related abilities, but it's still quite wordy.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: This feels fairly well enough like a Kozilek-brood Eldrazi from Oath of the Gatewatch, if I do say so.
(3/3) Balance: So this is a blowout-y card, obviously, but it's expensive to use and C is clearly meant to be a somewhat restrictive cost to pay. It's not too, too strong.
Creativity -
(3/3) Uniqueness: Closest thing I can think of is Broodwarden, which this is quite different from.
(2/3) Flavor: The flavor here is "generic Eldrazi", which is fine by me, but it doesn't break any new ground. A more unique name would have helped.
(2/3) Appeal: Timmy loves this for obvious reasons, Johnny wouldn't bother too much with it, and Spike sees a lot of finisher potential for a four-mana card.
(2.5/3) Elegance: Text-heavy, yet it all seems necessary.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: Feels like an artifact, too complex to be anything but rare.
(3/3) Balance: The last ability is the most concerning one, but it does require a lot of setup; Odric, Master Tactician shows you can get a lot out of a trigger for having that many attackers. I like the drawback; it's flavorful and does indeed provide a bit of balance.
Creativity -
(2.5/3) Uniqueness: Has precedent in stuff like battalion and Odric, but this kind of scaling effect has never been used like this.
(3/3) Flavor: Has the most visceral and palpable flavor of any of my entries. Every part of the card fits together in the flavor picture, and I am deeply amused by the flavor text. Battering rams seem like more of a think that Keldons would use than Balduvians, but I won't quibble.
Appeal (1.5/3) Timmy clearly likes this. Johnny has marginal interest in this, but the power level of the card isn't increased much when you combo with it given the high mana cost. Spike sees a card that is a lot of mana and requires that you untap with it and is disinterested.
Elegance (2.5/3) Every part about this is clean. The second ability has a few numbers that are easy to mix up, but once you're used to the effect it's fine.
Viability (3/3) Mythic is a good fit. Colorless is as well.
Balance (3/3) This seems like a very good limited bomb while also being plausible in a semicompetitive constructed decks. It provides value and eventually just wins the game once you cast enough colorless spells, but it's expensive, mythic, and dies to removal.
Uniqueness (3/3) Sort of a colorless tribal card, with an unprecedented anthem effect that feels fresh.
Flavor (3/3) The name and mechanical flavor work well together, and the flavor of the way the first two abilities interact is particularly nice (amass an army, then invade with it). The name is strange, which is fitting for an eldrazi. Unfortunately no room for flavor text.
Main challenge (2/2)
Subchallenges (1/2)
Quality (3/3) For elegance reasons, I would have preferred to see the second ability worded "Other colorless creatures you control get +4/+4 as long as you control four or more other colorless creatures.", but that's still just a matter of preference.
Total 22/25
Appeal (1.5/3) It's not really a card you combo with, so Johnny isn't super interested. Timmy likes how this can lead to massive alpha strikes. Spike doesn't like how much has to go right for this card to be powerful.
Elegance (2/3) It has a lot of moving parts. Although not immediately apparent, it's elegant that each additional attacker adds another effect; the first lets the ram attack, the second pumps your team, and the third lets you ignore blockers.
Viability (2/3) The rarity is fine. My issue is that the third ability is strongly associated with green, as a form of "super-trample". I feel like putting that ability on a colorless card is breaching color pie.
Balance (2/3)
This card is win-more by definition; it gets better the more you're attacking. Either it instantly wins you the game by alpha striking in a way that can't be blocked with a bonus, or it's a four mana 2/5 with defender. Such stratified power level on a single card is undesirable.
Uniqueness (3/3) It feels unique.
Flavor (2/3) The more men you have, the more your siege works. The mechanical flavor is there, but I am not particularly fond of the flavor text.
Main challenge (2/2)
Subchallenge (2/2)
Quality (3/3)
Total 19.5/25
Appeal (1.5/3) Timmy kind of likes how you get more boom with your burn spells. Johnny would put this in an all-burn deck. Spike doesn't like how it's a "setup enchantment" that's only moderately powerful for the high setup cost.
Elegance (2.5/3) Wordy, but elegant and easy to understand otherwise.
Viability (3/3) It checks out.
Balance (1.5/3) As a card that has a very high setup cost and has a stringent deckbuilding requirement, this has better have a big payoff. I'm not sure if turning Lightning Bolt into Searing Blaze is big enough of a payoff. The card does nothing on its own, requires you to have several burn spells, and asks you to save your burn until turn 5 after you've cast this. It simply poses too many hoops before it delivers a payoff, and even if this card was in my deck I'm not sure I'd save my burn until turn 5 for it.
Uniqueness (2/3) Satyr Firedancer has strong precedence here.
Flavor (3/3) "Overburn", as it were.
Main challenge (2/2)
Subchallenge (2/2)
Quality (2.5/3) The second ability should be worded "...that much damage to that permanent's controller."
Total 20/25
Appeal (1/3) Johnny might want to find ways to let this get through. It's too slow for Timmy and not powerful enough for Spike.
Elegance (3/3) It's clean and concise.
Viability (2.5/3) I think uncommon would have been more fitting as a rarity, given the low power level and low complexity, but otherwise this is fine.
Balance (1.5/3) For a rare, this isn't very forceful. While the effect can be good when it gets through, it will have difficulty doing so on turn 5 given how it has no evasion. The body isn't very good at beating creatures in combat, and if it's bouncing off a 2/3 creature that's just not good enough. The second ability is little more than flavor text, given how you need to connect with it, have it survive until their cleanup step, then have them have six or more cards in hand.
Uniqueness (2.5/3) A twist on the Specter trope, albeit without the creature type.
Flavor (2/3) The flavor text doesn't feel very natural. The name and mechanics go well together.
Main challenge (2/2)
Suchallenges (2/2)
Quality (3/3)
The challenges this month were inspired by Monty Python... in some way.
!!!
Certainly got that stuck in my head.
Main Challenge: Design a card that uses the same word (your choice) at least four times. See clarifications for more.
Subchallenge 1: No keyword abilities.
Subchallenge 2: Is uncommon or rare.
Challenge: The word could be in its name, its card text and its flavour text. You can have plural forms of the word, but no other forms. Finally, don't take the easy way and choose a short word like articles (a, the, an, etc...) as your word of choice.
Your chosen word can't be part of a longer word, so "men" in "Seamen" doesn't count.
Subchallenge 1: You can use ability words, such as hellbent, threshold, etc.
(i)Yes.
(ii)Homonyms are good.
(iii)Should not have any keyword abilities mentioned anywhere in the card text.
MCC Rules
(X/3) Appeal: Do the different player psychographics (Timmy/Johhny/Spike) have a use for the card?
(X/3) Elegance: Is the card easily understandable at a glance? Do all the flavor and mechanics combined as a whole make sense?
Development -
(X/3) Viability: How well does the card fit into the color wheel? Does it break or bend the rules of the game? Is it the appropriate rarity?
(X/3) Balance: Does the card have a power level appropriate for contemporary constructed/limited environments without breaking them? Does it play well in casual and multiplayer formats? Does it create or fit into a deck/archetype? Does it create an oppressive environment?
Creativity -
(X/3) Uniqueness: Has a card like this ever been printed before? Does it use new mechanics, ideas, or design space? Does it combine old ideas in a new way? Overall, does it feel “fresh”?
(X/3) Flavor: Does the name seem realistic for a card? Does the flavor text sound professional? Do all the flavor elements synch together to please Vorthos players?
Polish -
(X/3) Quality: Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
(X/2) *Main Challenge: Was the main challenge satisfied? Was it approached in a unique or interesting way? Does the card fit the intent of the challenge?
(X/2) Subchallenges: One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Total: X/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
DEADLINES
In green, the next deadline to come.
In blue, further future deadlines to come.
In red, past deadlines.
Player deadline: Friday, January 22nd 2016 23:59 EDT
Judge deadline: Monday, January 25th 2016 23:59 EDT
JUDGES
Moss_Elemental
bravelion83
void_nothing
admirableadmiral
Judge: Moss_Elemental
shinike1729 vs. Piar
Marco vs. Hemlock
Judge: braveion83
Marco vs. Hemlock
theazurespirit vs. Flatline
Judge: void_nothing
theazurespirit vs. Flatline
IcariiFA vs. doomfish
Judge: admirableadmiral
IcariiFA vs. doomfish
Shinike1729 vs. Piar
Good luck, everyone.
Artifact Creature - Construct (R)
Siege Ram can't attack alone.
Whenever Siege Ram and at least two other creatures attack, attacking creatures you control get +1/+0 until end of turn.
Whenever Siege Ram and at least three other creatures attack, you may have creatures you control assign their combat damage this turn as though they weren't blocked.
"Ram! Ram! Ram!" — Balduvian Warcry
2/5
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
Hand of Ashiok 2BB
Creature - Nightmare (R)
Whenever Hand of Ashiok deals damage to a player, that player exiles a card at random from his or her hand.
Each opponent's maximum hand size is reduced by the number of cards exiled by Hand of Ashiok.
It supplants itself into cherished memories, defiling them completely.
2/6
Goblin Gobbler 2RR
Creature - Beast (U)
Sacrifice a Goblin: Goblin Gobbler gets +2/+2 until end of turn. Target creature can't block it this turn.
Goblin gobblers generally gobble goblins gluttonously.
2/2
Creature - Human Wizard (Rare)
T: Exile target artifact card from a graveyard. Add 2 to your mana pool.
U, T: Exile target instant card from a graveyard. Counter target noncreature spell unless its controller pays 2.
R, T: Exile target sorcery card from a graveyard. Exile the top two cards of your library. Until end of turn, you may play cards exiled this way.
1/2
Voidflux Chasm
Land (R)
Voidflux Chasm enters the battlefield tapped.
: Add to your mana pool.
Landfall — Whenever a land enters the battlefield under your control, if it isn't named Voidflux Chasm, exile Voidflux Chasm, then return it to the battlefield under its owner's control.
Artifact Creature - Golem (U)
Creatures with power less than or equal to Block Golem's power can't block it.
T: Put a +1/+1 counter on Block Golem.
2/2
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.
Ulamog’s Hunger 2UB
Sorcery (R)
Each opponent exiles the top card of his or her library, a card from his or her graveyard, and a card from his or her hand.
Draw a card.
It devours everything and everywhere.
This would have devoid if it weren't for subchallenge 1.
Marco vs. Hemlock
Design
(2/3) Appeal - Timmy doesn't care. This card does so much there will certainly be something for Johnny to do, probably involving recurring mana generation with the first ability. Spike loves the flexibility of this card.
(2.5/3) Elegance - Wordy, but all effects are very clear. The obvious anchoring to Deathrite Shaman also helps make this more easily understandable.
Development
(3/3) Viability - Blue and red are the color that interact the most with artifacts, and blue can also generate mana out of it, while for red the mana generation may be a slight bend but it still has rituals and such so it's still well within bounds. Blue and red are also the colors that have the most interactions with instants and sorceries, and when you have to divide them blue gets instants and red gets sorceries. Countering spells is obviously blue, and impulsive draw is red. In the end, everything is fine. Rarity feels right: too powerful and flexible for uncommon, and not splashy enough for mythic. Also, the aforementioned Deathrite Shaman is conveniently rare.
(3/3) Balance - This is clearly playable in limited and in Standard. I wonder if it would meet the same fate as Deathrite Shaman in Modern (aka banned), even if I tend to think it would not. Still, the high flexibility is there so I can't exclude that. Anyway, this is certainly a card that would totally get the attention of competitive tournament players. I see no big problems in casual or multiplayer, seeing your spells countered is never fun, but here you will totally see it coming, so you'll be fully able to play around it.
Creativity
(1/3) Uniqueness - This is the one point in the rubric where the anchoring to Deathrite Shaman works against you. This is a nice variation on the Shaman, but the inspiration is obvious and evident.
(1.5/3) Flavor - The name is fine and fits with the concept. No room for flavor text.
Polish
(2.5/3) Quality - OGW is out and its rules changes are in full effect. The first ability here should use the new colorless mana symbol: "Add CC to your mana pool." (half a point deducted for now, because it's still a new thing)
(2/2) Main Challenge - The word "exile" is repeated four times. That's good.
(2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
Total: 19.5/25
Design
(2/3) Appeal - Timmy likes a creature that gets huge for playing planeswalkers, which is something he wants to do anyway. I don't see much for Johnny here, maybe something involving recurring the triggered ability but it looks like a bit of a stretch. Spike likes an undercosted potential fatty that gives a bonus to his planeswalkers.
(3/3) Elegance - I see no problems here.
Development
(1.5/3) Viability - As with every new effect, we have to consider where to put it in the color pie. White feels like the best choice to me both philosophically and mechanically. I'd really like to see this at mythic, both for the uniqueness of the effects and mostly for the power level.
(1/3) Balance - I'll admit, I'm worried about this. Thank goodness it doesn't have built-in trample or evasion. Even with a single planeswalker already out, which isn't hard to do at all, this will be something like a 5/5 or 6/6 for three mana when you play it. And then when it hits it becomes even bigger from the loyalty counters he puts. This looks very scary not only in a "superfriends" kind of deck, but also in a deck that just happens to run enough copies of planeswalkers, especially cheap ones. It won't hurt limited for certain, as it will most often just be a 2/2 there (all planeswalkers are mythic by default), but I am concerned about the effect this might have in constructed formats, including casual ones.
Creativity
(3/3) Uniqueness - You could say many things about this card, but you couldn't say it isn't unique.
(2/3) Flavor - The flavor definitely works well, the name may feel a bit generic though, like if it were there just to pass the challenge. I'm not saying it doesn't work though.
Polish
(3/3) Quality - All good here.
(2/2) Main Challenge - The word "knight" is repeated four times and "loyalty" six times. One would have been enough, unfortunately there's no bonus points for that. Style points for sure, but those aren't a thing here!
(2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
Total: 19.5/25
theazurespirit vs. Flatline
Design
(2/3) Appeal - Timmy can appreciate a creature that grows and that's hard to block, but he doesn't like that he has to choose between attacking with it and growing it. Johnny may try something with +1/+1 counters, but that feels like a stretch. Spike just probably wishes this was Hangarback Walker, but he still likes it enough.
(3/3) Elegance - I see no problems here.
Development
(2/3) Viability - The first ability has always been green and without the "equal to". The "equal to" is not a problem, and might actually be a nice variation, but do we want to give this ability to all colors? It doesn't look problematic, but that's something to keep in mind. All colors get access to +1/+1 counters, so that's good. It could probably work as a powerful uncommon but I really think this is more appropriate for a rare. It's true this is probably not as strong as the aforementioned Hangarback Walker, but I still think you wouldn't want to see this too often in limited.
(2.5/3) Balance - This certainly playable in limited, not sure about constructed. It might make a splash in Standard, but I don't think it would see widespread play. I see no problems in casual or multiplayer.
Creativity
(1/3) Uniqueness - The similarity to Hangarback Walker and the outlast mechanic from KTK hurt here. The nice variation in the first ability is still worth something but not too much.
(1.5/3) Flavor - The name works with the concept. No flavor text even though there is plenty of room for it.
Polish
(3/3) Quality - All good here.
(2/2) Main Challenge - The word "Golem" is repeated four times. That's good.
(2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
Total: 19/25
Design
(1.5/3) Appeal - Timmy doesn't care. Johnny loves this, he can exploit the landfall flicker ability in so many ways. Spike likes this too, but he would have liked it even better if it had a way of entering untapped after the flicker.
(2.5/3) Elegance - The landfall ability doesn't work when this land enters the battlefield, that's very clear for those who know the rules, but it may have not been so clear for new or less experienced players. You solved this in a very elegant manner, with the intervening if check on the card name (that also works for preventing unintended loops), eliminating all potential confusion.
Development
(2.5/3) Viability - This may look like a small bleed, as flickering is white and blue while here all colors can use this. Still, the interaction of this with other permanents' landfall abilities in any color is too nice to be ignored, and gives a reason for the bleed that looks valid enough. I've already mentioned the intervening if clause going a long way towards making this card viable to print. Rarity is obviously right, you don't want this at uncommon in an environment with landfall to be abused, and it's not splashy enough for mythic.
(2/3) Balance - The use for this card is obviously that of getting more landfall triggers out of other permanents for each land drop you make. That's a good intent that looks very strong in limited, and that's why this is rightly rare. I'd play this in limited if I have a landfall deck, like the red/green limited archetype in BFZ block, but probably not otherwise. The same is essentially true in constructed: you'd play this only if you have enough landfall interactions in your deck. I see no particular problems in casual or multiplayer.
Creativity
(2.5/3) Uniqueness - Landfall has never been on a land before, so this feels quite original. It's still not a new ability though.
(1.5/3) Flavor - The name is fine. No flavor text.
Polish
(3/3) Quality - All good here.
(2/2) Main Challenge - The card name is repeated four times. That's good.
(2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
Total: 19.5/25
Marco: 19.5
Hemlock: 19.5
theazurespirit: 19
Flatline: 19.5
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.)
Creature - Eldrazi (M)
Whenever you cast a colorless spell, you may pay 1. If you do, put a 1/1 colorless Eldrazi Scion creature token onto the battlefield. It has "Sacrifice this creature: Add C to your mana pool." (C represents colorless mana.)
Other colorless creatures you control get +4/+4 as long as you control five or more colorless creatures.
5/6
Knight of Loyalty 1WW
Creature - Human Knight (R)
Knight of Loyalty gets +1/+1 for each loyalty counter on planeswalkers you control.
Whenever Knight of Loyalty deals combat damage to a player, put a loyalty counter on target planeswalker you control.
"Honor and loyalty are his sword and armor."
2/2
Enchantment (R)
Whenever an instant or sorcery spell you control deals damage to a player, Blazing Reaction deals that much damage to target creature or planeswalker he or she controls.
Whenever an instant or sorcery spell you control deals damage to a creature or planeswalker, Blazing Reaction deals that much damage to that creature or planeswalker's controller.
Also, I put up the brackets, but there's still one hour left before the deadline.
Design -
(1.5/3) Appeal: Johnny likes it. Spike might like it.
(2/3) Elegance: I find the card lacks synergy. When I first read the second line, I thought it did damage “to that permanent's controller.” I was expecting it, in fact.
Development -
(2/3) Viability: Nowadays, the wording would not be “Whenever an instant or sorcery spell you control deals damage to a player...” Instead, it would be “Whenever an instant or sorcery spell you control deals damage to an opponent...”
(2/3) Balance: You play Lightning Bolt and a creature or planeswalker gets 6 damage. That's just too much for one mana. I think you should pay mana for the extra damage or make the cast cost higher.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: It's Satyr Firedancer without legs and adds insult to injury to creatures.
(2/3) Flavor: Not too crazy about the name.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: No problems here.
(2/2) Main Challenge: Met.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both met.
Total: 18.5/25
Design -
(1/3) Appeal: Johnny might play with it. That's about it.
(3/3) Elegance: No problems here.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: No problems here.
(2/3) Balance: Its best defense is its high toughness. I think for its abilities, it should have had some form of evasion. Yes, I know about the subchallenge, but, sometimes taking a chance might pay off.
Creativity -
(3/3) Uniqueness: It certainly feels new.
(3/3) Flavor: No problems here.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: No problems found.
(2/2) Main Challenge: Met
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both met.
Total: 22/25
Design -
(2/3) Appeal: Johnny and Spike likes it.
(3/3) Elegance: No problems here.
Development -
(2/3) Viability: There will be players asking if they can play the sorcery card along with the other two cards.
(2/3) Balance: I don't think this would be banned in Modern like Deathrite Shaman, I think it's a little strong. Getting two mana may be a bit much, even if you need an artifact card in a graveyard.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: This is clearly inspired by Deathrite Shaman.
(3/3) Flavor: No problems here.
Polish -
(2/3) Quality: CC instead of 2.
(2/2) Main Challenge: Met
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both met.
Total: 20/25
Design -
(2/3) Appeal: Timmy would love this, as would Spike.
(3/3) Elegance: No problems here.
Development -
(2/3) Viability: I think this should be mythic rare.
(1/3) Balance: There are planeswalkers whose starting loyalty is as high as 7. So it's possible to have your card enter the battlefield as a 9/9 for just three mana. With that, I think the mana cost should be higher. Much higher. Especially since it can add loyalty counters to your planeswalkers.
Creativity -
(3/3) Uniqueness: Not too many creatures that care about planeswalkers.
(3/3) Flavor: No problems here.
Polish -
(2.5/3) Quality: I find the quotation marks are unnecessary unless it was attributed to someone.
(2/2) Main Challenge: Met
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both met.
Total: 20.5/25
As always, no complaints, no arguments and it's not final until the deadline has passed.
Design -
(3/3) Appeal: Good size potential for Timmy, great for untap ability abuse for Johnny, and probably grows fast enough for Spike's liking.
(3/3) Elegance: Everything fits together well. There's easily understandable tension in between tapping for the ability and wanting to attack, which makes for good gameplay.
Development -
(2/3) Viability: Artifact feels right - besides it being a Golem there's the Chronomaton precedent - but this would more likely be rare than uncommon. It just is too much of a huge Limited threat otherwise.
(2.5/3) Balance: This is a pretty strong beater. Too strong? Well, it certainly beats out the curves of a few decks, but any abusive trick with it is almost too janky to be worth it (Freed from the Real abuse takes a lot of mana and is fragile).
Creativity -
(1.5/3) Uniqueness: It's a souped-up Chronomaton ability plus somewhat well-used evasion, but their interplay is somewhat unique.
(2/3) Flavor: Amusing name, but it'd probably be called Cinderblock Golem if not for this challenge. Evocative Lego-esque flavor! Could use flavor text; certainly has room.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Fine.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Yeah-huh.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Got both.
Total: 21/25
Design -
(2/3) Appeal: Timmy's not using it unless they're a Timmy-Johnny and have a reaaaaally big combo planned out, but this is a Johnny-Spike card to the core.
(2/3) Elegance: Gets its point across but uses a lot of awkward words to do so. You also sort of misuse landfall here.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: Kind of surprised this wasn't in any Zendikar sets.
(1.5/3) Balance: Entering the battlefield tapped helps the balance of this quite a lot, but it's still highly suspect. In multiples in concert with Amulet of Vigor, it's a little nutty. And... there's a reason why Oboro, Palace in the Clouds is such an expensive card.
Creativity -
(2.5/3) Uniqueness: Apart from slight similarity to Oboro, as mentioned, there's nothing quite like this.
(2/3) Flavor: This is... Eldrazi-related? I think? With a name like "Voidflux" it does sound that way, but it's hard to tell for sure. Also no flavor text.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Seems okay.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: You got it.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Has landfall, but that's an ability word, not a keyword.
Total: 20/25
Design -
(3/3) Appeal: Timmy's obviously into it, Johnny might try something lulzy with a bunch of Ornithopters, Memnites, and Phyrexian Walkers, and certain Spikes could use it as a finisher.
(2/3) Elegance: There's a lot of text on this, which is certainly forgivable considering it's got two closely related abilities, but it's still quite wordy.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: This feels fairly well enough like a Kozilek-brood Eldrazi from Oath of the Gatewatch, if I do say so.
(3/3) Balance: So this is a blowout-y card, obviously, but it's expensive to use and C is clearly meant to be a somewhat restrictive cost to pay. It's not too, too strong.
Creativity -
(3/3) Uniqueness: Closest thing I can think of is Broodwarden, which this is quite different from.
(2/3) Flavor: The flavor here is "generic Eldrazi", which is fine by me, but it doesn't break any new ground. A more unique name would have helped.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Fine.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Good.
(1/2) Subchallenges: Is mythic.
Total: 22/25
Design -
(2/3) Appeal: Timmy loves this for obvious reasons, Johnny wouldn't bother too much with it, and Spike sees a lot of finisher potential for a four-mana card.
(2.5/3) Elegance: Text-heavy, yet it all seems necessary.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: Feels like an artifact, too complex to be anything but rare.
(3/3) Balance: The last ability is the most concerning one, but it does require a lot of setup; Odric, Master Tactician shows you can get a lot out of a trigger for having that many attackers. I like the drawback; it's flavorful and does indeed provide a bit of balance.
Creativity -
(2.5/3) Uniqueness: Has precedent in stuff like battalion and Odric, but this kind of scaling effect has never been used like this.
(3/3) Flavor: Has the most visceral and palpable flavor of any of my entries. Every part of the card fits together in the flavor picture, and I am deeply amused by the flavor text. Battering rams seem like more of a think that Keldons would use than Balduvians, but I won't quibble.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Good.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Done.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Got them.
Total: 23/25
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
Appeal (1.5/3) Timmy clearly likes this. Johnny has marginal interest in this, but the power level of the card isn't increased much when you combo with it given the high mana cost. Spike sees a card that is a lot of mana and requires that you untap with it and is disinterested.
Elegance (2.5/3) Every part about this is clean. The second ability has a few numbers that are easy to mix up, but once you're used to the effect it's fine.
Viability (3/3) Mythic is a good fit. Colorless is as well.
Balance (3/3) This seems like a very good limited bomb while also being plausible in a semicompetitive constructed decks. It provides value and eventually just wins the game once you cast enough colorless spells, but it's expensive, mythic, and dies to removal.
Uniqueness (3/3) Sort of a colorless tribal card, with an unprecedented anthem effect that feels fresh.
Flavor (3/3) The name and mechanical flavor work well together, and the flavor of the way the first two abilities interact is particularly nice (amass an army, then invade with it). The name is strange, which is fitting for an eldrazi. Unfortunately no room for flavor text.
Main challenge (2/2)
Subchallenges (1/2)
Quality (3/3) For elegance reasons, I would have preferred to see the second ability worded "Other colorless creatures you control get +4/+4 as long as you control four or more other colorless creatures.", but that's still just a matter of preference.
Total 22/25
Appeal (1.5/3) It's not really a card you combo with, so Johnny isn't super interested. Timmy likes how this can lead to massive alpha strikes. Spike doesn't like how much has to go right for this card to be powerful.
Elegance (2/3) It has a lot of moving parts. Although not immediately apparent, it's elegant that each additional attacker adds another effect; the first lets the ram attack, the second pumps your team, and the third lets you ignore blockers.
Viability (2/3) The rarity is fine. My issue is that the third ability is strongly associated with green, as a form of "super-trample". I feel like putting that ability on a colorless card is breaching color pie.
Balance (2/3)
This card is win-more by definition; it gets better the more you're attacking. Either it instantly wins you the game by alpha striking in a way that can't be blocked with a bonus, or it's a four mana 2/5 with defender. Such stratified power level on a single card is undesirable.
Uniqueness (3/3) It feels unique.
Flavor (2/3) The more men you have, the more your siege works. The mechanical flavor is there, but I am not particularly fond of the flavor text.
Main challenge (2/2)
Subchallenge (2/2)
Quality (3/3)
Total 19.5/25
Appeal (1.5/3) Timmy kind of likes how you get more boom with your burn spells. Johnny would put this in an all-burn deck. Spike doesn't like how it's a "setup enchantment" that's only moderately powerful for the high setup cost.
Elegance (2.5/3) Wordy, but elegant and easy to understand otherwise.
Viability (3/3) It checks out.
Balance (1.5/3) As a card that has a very high setup cost and has a stringent deckbuilding requirement, this has better have a big payoff. I'm not sure if turning Lightning Bolt into Searing Blaze is big enough of a payoff. The card does nothing on its own, requires you to have several burn spells, and asks you to save your burn until turn 5 after you've cast this. It simply poses too many hoops before it delivers a payoff, and even if this card was in my deck I'm not sure I'd save my burn until turn 5 for it.
Uniqueness (2/3) Satyr Firedancer has strong precedence here.
Flavor (3/3) "Overburn", as it were.
Main challenge (2/2)
Subchallenge (2/2)
Quality (2.5/3) The second ability should be worded "...that much damage to that permanent's controller."
Total 20/25
Appeal (1/3) Johnny might want to find ways to let this get through. It's too slow for Timmy and not powerful enough for Spike.
Elegance (3/3) It's clean and concise.
Viability (2.5/3) I think uncommon would have been more fitting as a rarity, given the low power level and low complexity, but otherwise this is fine.
Balance (1.5/3) For a rare, this isn't very forceful. While the effect can be good when it gets through, it will have difficulty doing so on turn 5 given how it has no evasion. The body isn't very good at beating creatures in combat, and if it's bouncing off a 2/3 creature that's just not good enough. The second ability is little more than flavor text, given how you need to connect with it, have it survive until their cleanup step, then have them have six or more cards in hand.
Uniqueness (2.5/3) A twist on the Specter trope, albeit without the creature type.
Flavor (2/3) The flavor text doesn't feel very natural. The name and mechanics go well together.
Main challenge (2/2)
Suchallenges (2/2)
Quality (3/3)
Total 19.5/25
Piar 22+19.5=41.5
Marco 20+19.5=39.5
Hemlock 20.5+19.5=40
theazurespirit 19+21=40
Flatline 19.5+19=38.5
IcariiFA 22+22=44
doomfish 23+19.5=42.5
We have our finalists. Round 4 will be posted soon.