(This month's banner is my own elaboration on the art of the card Rally the Peasants by Jaime Jones)
March MCC Round 3
"Curse of Death"
"Please, help! Here someone's dead!"
This is what I heard a passer-by said,
to which I replied: "You want them back?
Just let me work and don't mind the pack!"
I had a trail of Zombies behind,
and among them he did soon himself find!"
-Liliana's rhymes Main Challenge: Design a Curse enchantment card OR a card with morbid. No DFCs! (please see Clarifications)
Subchallenges:
1- The card is NOT black.
2- The card has CMC 4 or greater.
On the Main Challenge:
• Your card can be a Curse and also have morbid, even though it doesn't have to. Satisfying only one of the conditions (1- being a Curse and 2- having morbid) is enough to pass the challenge.
Design -
(X/3) Appeal: Do the different player psychographics (Timmy/Johhny/Spike) have a use for the card? (X/3) Elegance: Is the card easily understandable at a glance? Do all the flavor and mechanics combined as a whole make sense?
Development - (X/3) Viability: How well does the card fit into the color wheel? Does it break or bend the rules of the game? Is it the appropriate rarity? (X/3) Balance: Does the card have a power level appropriate for contemporary constructed/limited environments without breaking them? Does it play well in casual and multiplayer formats? Does it create or fit into a deck/archetype? Does it create an oppressive environment?
Creativity - (X/3) Uniqueness: Has a card like this ever been printed before? Does it use new mechanics, ideas, or design space? Does it combine old ideas in a new way? Overall, does it feel “fresh”? (X/3) Flavor: Does the name seem realistic for a card? Does the flavor text sound professional? Do all the flavor elements synch together to please Vorthos players?
Polish - (X/3) Quality: Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating. (X/2) *Main Challenge: Was the main challenge satisfied? Was it approached in a unique or interesting way? Does the card fit the intent of the challenge? (X/2) Subchallenges: One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Total: X/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
DEADLINES In green, the next deadline to come.
In blue, further future deadlines to come.
In red, past deadlines.
Player deadline: Monday, March 21st 23:59 EDT
Judge deadline: Friday, March 25th 23:59 EDT
One of the judges asked a 1-day time extension due to real life reasons.
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.)
Curse of Inhibition2WU
Enchantment — Curse [R]
Enchant player
Whenever enchanted player casts his or her first spell with converted mana cost 2 or less each turn, counter that spell. "Let your mind be unfettered by petty thoughts."
—Dierk, Geistmage
Curse of Whispers2UU
Enchantment - Curse (R)
Enchant player
At the beginning of enchanted player's upkeep, put four insanity counters on Curse of Whispers, then enchanted player puts the top X cards of his or her library into his or her graveyard, where X is the number of insanity counters on Curse of Whispers. "I swear! The shrew spoke to me!"
— Odolf, village madman
Curse of Lost Futures4U
Enchantment — Aura Curse [M]
Enchant player
Enchanted player plays with the top card of his or her library revealed.
During the turn of each player other than enchanted player, that player may play the top card of enchanted player's library. "Do not live wondering what could have been. Die now knowing precisely."
Curse of the Pariah4W
Enchantment - Aura Curse (U)
Enchant player
At the beginning of enchanted player's upkeep, each of enchanted player's opponents puts two 1/1 white Human creature tokens onto the battlefield. "May your name be cursed in every household and your death be sought by all."
Curse of Displacement3UU
Enchantment — Aura Curse (R)
Enchant player
Whenever a creature enchanted player controls attacks or blocks, return it to its owner's hand at end of combat. Nobody believed Tom when he said all his livestock disappeared in one night.
Curse of Magnification4GG
Enchantment - Aura Curse (R)
Enchant player
Whenever enchanted player taps a land for mana, you may add one mana to your mana pool of any type that land produced. "What is yours is also mine."
— Alharov, Kessig druid
Judge: bravelion83
Guesswork vs theazurespirit
maplesmall vs mirrorentity
Judge: Moss_Elemental
maplesmall vs mirrorentity
shinike1729 vs TriceDefied
Judge: doomfish
shinike1729 vs TriceDefied
admirableadmiral vs sperlman
Judge: caliburdeath
admirableadmiral vs sperlman
Guesswork vs theazurespirit Judgments complete. Not final until deadline. Sorry for being later than usual this time. Real life got in the way.
Check my "Mark of Quality" articles (link in signature) for a list of the most common Quality mistakes to avoid.
Challenges: what counts is always the letter of the law, unless explicit specifications of the host.
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.
Curse of Lost Futures4U
Enchantment — Aura Curse [M]
Enchant player
Enchanted player plays with the top card of his or her library revealed.
During the turn of each player other than enchanted player, that player may play the top card of enchanted player's library. "Do not live wondering what could have been. Die now knowing precisely."
Design (1/3) Appeal - Some Timmies might like the feeling of stealing things from the opponent's deck (griefers are a subset of Timmy after all). Johnny might try something, but having to rely on the opponent's deck to give him the right thing isn't the best for him. Spike hates that aspect of the card even more, even though at least he likes seeing what his opponent is drawing. (1/3) Elegance - This card takes a few reads to grasp well, but it couldn't have been any better given what it does.
Development (3/3) Viability - Everything is in color and I can totally see this deserving mythic rarity. (1/3) Balance - I'm not sure I'd play this in limited. Maybe, but maybe not. Yes, it can give you card advantage provided you have the means to pay the costs of the cards you're stealing (and reminder text "You still pay their costs" would have been nice even though it's not mandatory), but I'd probably play things that directly affect the board before this. In constructed, having to rely on the opponent's deck is a weakness that probably makes this almost unplayable. I think this card has the potential to be really unfun in casual environments: I don't know many players that like seeing their things stolen and played against them.
Creativity (2.5/3) Uniqueness - Playing with the top card revealed isn't particularly new but the use you do of that here is. I can't think of any other card that does something "during the turn of each player other than" a specific opponent. (3/3) Flavor - I absolutely love the flavor text! It's relatable, and it makes a lot of sense with the card concept and the mechanics, as does the name. "Curse of Stolen Futures" would also have been a very good name, probably even more fitting with the mechanics, but we're splitting hairs here. Very well done in this department.
Polish (3/3) Quality - I can't find any precedent for the wording of the duration of the last ability. That wording reads a bit strange to me, but it looks like it's a totally new thing and I agree the one you proposed seems the clearest possible wording. Just mentioning this, no deduction. (2/2) Main Challenge - Good. (2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
Curse of the Pariah4W
Enchantment - Aura Curse (U)
Enchant player
At the beginning of enchanted player's upkeep, each of enchanted player's opponents puts two 1/1 white Human creature tokens onto the battlefield. "May your name be cursed in every household and your death be sought by all."
Design (2.5/3) Appeal - Timmy likes tokens, he just have probably liked a single bigger one even better. Spike, at the contrary, likes the potential of swarming the board with 1/1 tokens and going as wide as he can. He also likes that the effect is repeatable, and that can make it worth the mana cost. Johnny is already thinking of how to exploit the tokens. Johnny/Spikes, in particular, are surely thinking which Anthem effect is the best to pump the tokens. (3/3) Elegance - I see no particular problems here.
Development (2.5/3) Viability - Everything is in color. The relatively high mana cost probably makes this fine at uncommon. I could also see this as a rare: two tokens a turn are not to be underestimated. (2/3) Balance - As I just said, you have to not underestimate the potential of putting two tokens a turn onto the battlefield. The timing of the tokens' creation is relevant too: right on time to block your opponent's imminent attack or else to not have summoning sickness when your turn comes. You can't really compare this to cards like Bitterblossom, but there's something vaguely reminiscent here. The tokens here don't fly but they are two, and the mana cost is much higher. I think this is playable in limited, but will need to built around to be playable in constructed. I see no problems in casual. In multiplayer, this gets really interesting as not only you but also the enchanted player's other opponents will get the tokens, so who do you target? That's a very interesting political decision for those players that, unlike myself, like such aspects.
Creativity (3/3) Uniqueness - I didn't think it could be true (so good that I checked Gatherer to be sure), but it looks like none of the existing Curses refers to "enchanted player's opponents" and has them do something. It's one of those things that feels like it just has to have already been done, but then you check and you discover that indeed it's never been done. (2.5/3) Flavor - The name and flavor text are good and they make sense with one another. The link to the card's mechanics is not as apparent but it's there: all the Humans that will appear at the same time are the "all" that "seek your death". It took some moments for me to see it, but it makes sense.
Polish (3/3) Quality - All good here. (2/2) Main Challenge - Good. (2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
Curse of Mediocrity4WU
Enchantment - Aura Curse (M)
Enchant player
Creatures enchanted player controls have base power and toughness 1/1. The cathars had only one option; surrender to a lifetime of insigificance and worthlessness.
Design (1.5/3) Appeal - Timmy likes making his creatures bigger more than making his opponent's ones smaller. The exact opposite is true for Spike, even though for six mana he'll play a sweeper over this. Why making the opponent's creatures smaller if he can just get rid of them for the same amount of mana? Johnny's first thought is "how can I take advantage of enchanting myself with this?" and that is a really very nice challenge for him to solve. (3/3) Elegance - Short and immediately understandable. Perfect.
Development (2.5/3) Viability - Godhead of Awe shows this effect is in both colors' pie. I'm not sure this deserves to be mythic, I could also see this at regular rare. It's debatable. (2/3) Balance - This is a pseudo-Wrath in limited, so it's definitely playable there. In constructed you will have to ask yourself if you prefer a lasting effect that doesn't get rid of opposing creatures right away or vice versa. If the former is the case, you'll play this, while in the latter case you'll play any Wrath effect available in the format over this. Some players could find a little unfun to see every creature of theirs, even future ones, demoted to humble 1/1s, but that's kind of the point of the card.
Creativity (1.5/3) Uniqueness - Humility and Godhead of Awe already exist, so this is not exactly new design space. Still, the fact that it's asymmetric, unlike all such existing cards, is an interesting new twist. (3/3) Flavor - The flavor is good: name, flavor text, and mechanics make sense together. I wish I could have said the name was mediocre!
Polish (2.5/3) Quality - I see two mistakes in the flavor text, probably just two typos: the semicolon should be a colon (doesn't feel like deserving a deduction by itself) and the word "insignificance" is missing an "n", the one right after the "g" (half a point deducted). (2/2) Main Challenge - Good. (2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
Curse of Magnification4GG
Enchantment - Aura Curse (R)
Enchant player
Whenever enchanted player taps a land for mana, you may add one mana to your mana pool of any type that land produced. "What is yours is also mine."
— Alharov, Kessig druid
Design (2/3) Appeal - Timmy likes doubling his mana to play bigger and better creatures and will play this on himself 100% of the time. Johnny might like to have double the mana if he needs it. Spike will mostly play this on his opponent to try to paralyze them ("You want mana to cast your spells? Ok, you can have it if you give it to me too! You don't want to give me mana? Oh, that's too bad... no mana for you either then!"), which is probably the intent here given the flavor. Still, there must be better ways for him to spend six mana. (2/3) Elegance - The mechanics are short and understandable, though the asymmetry between the effect when you put this on yourself and on your opponent hurts a bit here.
Development (3/3) Viability - There's no doubt the effect is green. Rarity feels appropriate as this affects all of enchanted player's lands, not just one. (1/3) Balance - I'm not sure I'd play this in limited. Doubling your mana is tempting, but this doesn't affect the board in any meaningful way and anyway comes down when I already have a lot of mana. The same consideration can be made in constructed, and there it's even magnified! (Today I feel like making puns...) I can't see this getting competitive play. At the same time, I think many casual players will like this: they are less likely to care about the high mana cost and more likely to rate highly the ability to increase your mana.
Creativity (2/3) Uniqueness - The fact that this is a Curse that you'll want to put onto yourself the majority of the time, while still being able to enchant the opponent if you want, is definitely new. It doesn't work particularly well with the flavor though. (1.5/3) Flavor - The name is acceptable even if maybe not the best (I don't have any particular alternative in mind though). The flavor text really feels too generic to me, even though I understand the connection to the mechanics and the attribution helps lessen that feeling somewhat.
Polish (3/3) Quality - There should be no space between the long dash and the name in the flavor text attribution, but that doesn't feel enough to deserve a deduction. At least you rightly put that attribution on its own line. (2/2) Main Challenge - Good. (2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
MCC - Winner (6): Oct 2014, Apr Nov 2017, Jan 2018, Apr Jun 2019 || Host (15): Dec 2014, Apr Jul Aug Dec 2015, Mar Jul Aug Oct 2016, Feb Jul 2017, Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) || Judge (34): every month from Nov 2014 to Nov 2016 except Oct 2015, every month from Feb to Jul 2017 except Apr 2017, then Oct 2017, May Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) CCL - Winner (3): Jul 2016 (tied with Flatline), May 2017, Jul 2019 (last one here) || Host (5): Feb 2015, Mar Apr May Jun 2016 DCC - Winner (1): Mar 2015 (tied with Piar) || Host (3): May Oct 2015, Jan 2016
• The two public custom sets I've been part a part of the design team for: "Brotherhood of Ormos" - Blog post with all info - set thread - design skeleton / card list || "Extinctia: Homo Evanuit" - Blog post with all info - set thread - card list spreadsheet
• "The Lion's Lair", my article series about MTG and custom card design in particular. Latest article here. Here is the article index.Rather outdated by now, and based on the old MCC rubric, but I'm leaving this here for anybody that might be interested anyway.
• My only public attempt at being a writer: the story of my Leonin custom planeswalker Jeff Lionheart. (I have a very big one that I'm working on right now but that's private for now, and I don't know if I will ever actually publish it, and I also have ideas for multiple future ones, including one where I'm going to reprise Jeff.)
(1/3) Appeal: Only Johnny might play with this.
(3/3) Elegance: No problems here.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: No problems here.
(1/3) Balance: Most of the time, you'll be getting the mana on your opponent's turns, so maybe this should cost less, and even then, you'll be limited to using that mana for activated abilities or card that can be played at instant speed.
Creativity -
(3/3) Uniqueness: There's nothing else like this.
(1/3) Flavor: I feel that neither the name nor the flavour text fits what the card.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: No problems here.
(2/2) Main Challenge: Met
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both met.
Total: 19/25
Design -
(1/3) Appeal: Timmy likes it. Johnny sees little combo potential. Spike would like to see it cheaper to cast.
(3/3) Elegance: No problems here.
Development -
(1/3) Viability: It could have been rare and just blue.
(3/3) Balance: Six mana seems reasonable for a permanent Polymorphist's Jest
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: There are other cards that turn creatures into 1/1's. Some affect only your opponent's creature, too.
(2/3) Flavor: You could have called it Curse of Humility.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality:
(2/2) Main Challenge: Met
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both met
Total: 19/25
Design -
(2/3) Appeal: Timmy might like this. Spike would love this.
(3/3) Elegance: No problems here.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: No problems here.
(2/3) Balance: It would inconvenience aggressive decks, that's for sure. Maybe a little too much.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: There are creatures that bounce any creature it blocked.
(3/3) Flavor: Nice flavour text.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: No problems here.
(2/2) Main Challenge: Met.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both met.
Total: 22/25
Design -
(1.5/3) Appeal: Timmy might be underwhelmed after Vorinclex, but might play with it. Johnny might not see any combo potential. Spike might play with it, though.
(3/3) Elegance: No problems here.
Development -
(2/3) Viability: I know Vorinclex, Voice of Hunger does the same thing, but New Phyrexia didn't show much respect for the colour pie. I think it should be black instead of green.
(2/3) Balance: This is almost bad as any card that locks down your opponent. Sure, there are cards like Seedborn Muse and Prophet of Kruphix, but the player will not have any fun. I think this should cost a little more.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: Obviously inspired by Vorinclex, Voice of Hunger.
(3/3) Flavor: No problems here.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: No problems here.
(2/2) Main Challenge: Met
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both met
Curse of Inhibition2WU
Enchantment — Curse [R]
Enchant player
Whenever enchanted player casts his or her first spell with converted mana cost 2 or less each turn, counter that spell. "Let your mind be unfettered by petty thoughts."
—Dierk, Geistmage
Design -
(1/3) Appeal: This card has little room for Johnny to play. It isn't a big enough effect for Timmy. This could easily fit into a Spike's strategy.
(2.5/3) Elegance: This may require a reread but doesn't have any particular issues.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: This effect is well within white and blue's color pie. Countering spells each turn is a rare effect.
(2.5/3) Balance: I'm not actually certain this would see play in any format. It could see some Limited play, but coming down on turn 4, which is the best-case scenario, it has likely already missed some spells, and the majority of spells in limited are cmc 3+. It's also a poor topdeck. However it does shut off some actions on its controller's turn, so it's got that for it. The only place I could see this in constructed would be in a Standard control deck's sideboard against aggro, though that's not a bad place to be. Casual control decks would enjoy this.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: Erayo's Essence and [Kira, Great Glass-Spinner have countered the first spell of a condition each turn, while Gaddock Teeg has prevented big spells from being cast. However, no card yet has prevented small spells being cast this way.
(2.5/3) Flavor: The name and flavor text both sound professional and work well with the effect. However, they don't really work very well with eachother.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: No problems here.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: All good.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both filled.
Curse of Whispers2UU
Enchantment - Curse (R)
Enchant player
At the beginning of enchanted player's upkeep, put four insanity counters on Curse of Whispers, then enchanted player puts the top X cards of his or her library into his or her graveyard, where X is the number of insanity counters on Curse of Whispers. "I swear! The shrew spoke to me!"
— Odolf, village madman
Design -
(2.5/3) Appeal: Mill is generally something Johnny likes. This card offers some room to play with counter manipulation, but otherwise I don't think Johnny would enjoy it too mch. Tammy isn't usually interested in mill, but the numbers on this get big quite quickly and without much work. Ultimately, however, I think this card appeals most to Spike, simply for the speed at which it can win with simple protection.
(2/3) Elegance: I question your use of four counters. Why not have the player mill four cards for each counter and put only one on each upkeep? It's unusual for cards to have so quickly growing tracking requirements. Otherwise, no problem.
Development -
(2.5/3) Viability: Mill is easily blue. Im not sure this effect would need to be rare, if it weren't for how pushed it was, but it's not terrible there.
(0/3) Balance: This is extremely oppressive in Limited. A 3-turn clock that comes down turn 4, wins through a method players can rarely reverse, and is a type for which removal in limited isn't common? In Standard this card would be an extremely good control finisher, and perhaps enable its own archetype. Heliod's Pilgrim becomes Standard playable. Mainboarding enchantment removal probably becomes necessary. This is a format-warping card. It could even see play as a Modern control finisher.
Creativity -
(1/3) Uniqueness: This is not the first curse to mill (Curse of the Bloody Tome), this is not the first card to mill based on the number of counters (Grindclock). The only part of this that's unique is that it's the first curse to use counters.
(2/3) Flavor: The flavor is fine. Mill is often compared to insanity in sets without the Madness mechanic. I would expect something in the name to indicate the growing nature of the effect.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: No issues here.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: All good.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both filled.
Curse of Lost Futures4U
Enchantment — Aura Curse [M]
Enchant player
Enchanted player plays with the top card of his or her library revealed.
During the turn of each player other than enchanted player, that player may play the top card of enchanted player's library. "Do not live wondering what could have been. Die now knowing precisely."
Design -
(1/3) Appeal: Timmy likes the possibility of taking an opponents threat, as does spike, but both would probably prefer to play their own. Jenny likes the possibilities of library manipulation or grabbing the opponent's stuff, but again would probably prefer to play her own, more synergistic stuff.
(2/3) Elegance: While it's probably the best way to state the effect, "During the turn of each player other than enchanted player" is rather clumsy and may need to be reread. Otherwise good.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: Playing the opponent's cards is usually in blue, as is playing with the top of the library revealed. This feels fine at mythic.
(1/3) Balance: This is difficult to evaluate, but seems fairly weak. In limited, it can grant you card advantage, information, and control of your opponents draws, but it's incredibly swingy and, if you play their lands to reduce that swinginess, it can end up benefiting them. I think this would be fine as a 4-drop, perhaps even 3. It certainly wouldn't see competitive constructed play, but EDH and casual decks would love it.
Creativity -
(3/3) Uniqueness: While cards in the past have allowed players to play other players' cards, e.g. Bribery, Sen Triplets, never before has it been in this way.Also, no card has an opponent, specifically, play with the top card of their library revealed.
(2.5/3) Flavor: Fairly solid and accurate name and flavor text. My only complaint is the "die now" in the flavor text. This hardly expedites their death.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: No issues.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: All good
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both filled
Curse of the Pariah4W
Enchantment - Aura Curse (U)
Enchant player
At the beginning of enchanted player's upkeep, each of enchanted player's opponents puts two 1/1 white Human creature tokens onto the battlefield. "May your name be cursed in every household and your death be sought by all."
Design -
(1.5/3) Appeal: Tammy kinda likes the possibility of a lot of tokens, but it takes to long from casting to payoff for her. There isn't much for Johnny here. Spike likes getting two tokens per turn for sure.
(3/3) Elegance: No problems here.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: This is not a problem in white. It almost feels like a simplified curse version of [[Assemble the Legion]], so I think uncommon is fine.
(2/3) Balance: This card might be a little strong in Limited. It's an uncommon that can absolutely take over the game. However, at 5 mana, it's not too terrible. This probably costs too much for Standard, but that's not certain, it could see play in the right shell. Casual would certainly enjoy it.
Creativity -
(1/3) Uniqueness: No curse yet deals with tokens, however the mechanical idea isn't really new (Akroan Horse).
(3/3) Flavor: The name and flavor text sound professional and synergize with eachother and the card's effect. My only complaint is that it doesn't relate to Pariah and Pariah's Shield :).
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: All good
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both filled
Design -
(1.5/3) Appeal: Timmy probably doesn't even see the problem. You still get to do everything you want with your creature, right? Then you just play it again. I don't think this holds enough value for Spike. Johnny might just find a use for it.
(3/3) Elegance: Pretty straightforward. A well established mechanic.
Development -
(2.5/3) Viability: It's blue and it's a big effect. I wonder, it could probably have been at uncommon. But it's hard to say how much impact it has.
(2/3) Balance: Again, it's hard to say how strong this is. If everything goes well, your opponent is overwhelmed with creatures he has to cast again.
But most of the time they'll just get the same value as always, by trading. It could work well with armies of tokens. Think of it as a bad one-sided Deathpits of Rath.
A one-sided Pits is pretty nuts, so a bad one-sided Pits is fine. But it's not strong. So I believe this could have been at 4 mana at least.
Creativity -
(2.5/3) Uniqueness: The mechanic of bouncing at the end of combat isn't new, but applying it to multiple creatures is a step that hasn't been made yet. It adds a whole new dimension to it.
(2/3) Flavor: I like the idea of this curse. Your army keeps slipping away and it just won't stop happening! The name is fine, the card is resonant, but the flavortext is really clumsy. It's oddly focused on the part of no one believing "Tom". Why wouldn't they? If the livestock is gone that'd be plain to see for anyone.
Polish -
(2.5/3) Quality: The remindertext (Return it only if it's on the battlefield.) is rather important for a card like this, I would have liked to see it.
(2/2) Main Challenge: Curse enchantment.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Not black and cmc > 4
Total: 20/25
Design -
(1.5/3) Appeal: Spike might just appreciate the tempo advantage. I don't think anyone else is fixitated that much on not letting the opponent in on the game.
(3/3) Elegance: Pretty simple and straightforward.
Development -
(2/3) Viability: This ability has been established in green, even though it feels a bit blue. An effect that keeps your opponent from playing cards like that is rather close to the level of fun and interaction land destruction bring with it. I don't see Magic tapping into that design space like that. It was fine on a high cost, high rarity, high profile card like Vorinclex, but this might take it too far.
(2.5/3) Balance: An effect like this might actually be a lot more powerful than it looks. If you think about it, you are pretty much halving your opponents output. Worrysome. But it's probably not that bad.
Creativity -
(1.5/3) Uniqueness: Literally just a part of Vorinclex. But it's an excellent fit for a curse and puts it on just one player. I like that.
(2/3) Flavor: The name is rather fitting. You can just picture a despaired farmer over his rotten crops. A very curse-like thing to do. What I don't like is the executing of the flavortext. It's just cheesy. Fairy-tale evil witch tier. Also how are there going to be harvests, if the field remains barren after the first one? I just don't feel it.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Looks clean.
(2/2) Main Challenge: Curse enchantment.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Green and cmc 4.
Total: 19.5/25
Design -
(2.5/3) Appeal: Spike. Certainly Spike. Against other Spikes. Also maybe Johnny. All those pesky counters and enchantment/artifact removals seem to fall into the 2 cmc category.
(2/3) Elegance: The two conditions read a bit bumpy, but you quickly catch the idea.
Development -
(2/3) Viability: I'm not sure what white does in that. Mastery over small spells maybe. Restricting the use to w/u decks. It feels a bit pointless when you think about it. Rare certainly seems appropriate.
(1.5/3) Balance: Now this is hard to say. Is this good in older formats? I mean, most spells there cost 2 or less. But then again, this costs 4. That makes it a bit hard to cast.
Nonetheless it seems rather strong. And against most aggro decks it also would do quite a lot. Almost every deck plays a couple of 2 or less cmc spells. I feel like this might be pretty brutal.
Creativity -
(3/3) Uniqueness: I think we never had anything quite like this. Chalice of the Void comes close, but still plays vastly different.
(1.5/3) Flavor: Inhibition is quite the broad term. I would have wished for something more concrete. Like the flavortext.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Looks good.
(2/2) Main Challenge: It says curse there on the type line.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Not black and costs 4 or more.
Total: 19.5/25
Design -
(3/3) Appeal: Timmy and Johnny are excited by milling. Spike might like the opportunity for a nice alternative draft deck.
(1.5/3) Elegance: That's a ton of counters your are putting on that. It reads a bit awkward. Could have been 1 counter and then four times the number of counters. But then it'd read even worse.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: Milling certainly belongs in blue and this card certainly belongs at rare.
(0/3) Balance: Let's compare this card to Grindclock. Your card is to Grindclock, what a space rocket is to a paper airplane. Your card is a four times charged Grindclock, four turns before Grindclock gets there and then it just gets worse.
You get to deck your opponent within four turns. If the opponent happens to have more than 40 cards left in his or her deck you just wait another turn. And it doesn't even come at a cost besides the inital casting cost. And those are just a laughable four mana.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: We had Curse of the Bloody Tome before, but that didn't pose as a alternate win condition quite like yours. I'd say the scale of effect is quite unique.
(3/3) Flavor: Mentionings of shrews always net full points here.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Looks good.
(2/2) Main Challenge: Looks like one hell of a curse to me.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both met.
Total: 19.5/25
shinike1729 (20) vs TriceDefied (19.5)
admirableadmiral (19.5) vs sperlman (19.5)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Multiple instances of lifelink on the same creature are redundant.
Multiple instances of lifelink on the same creature are redundant.
Multiple instances of lifelink on the same creature are redundant.
—Eli Shiffrin, Rules Manager, on a design stacking lifelink instances
MCC - Winner (6): Oct 2014, Apr Nov 2017, Jan 2018, Apr Jun 2019 || Host (15): Dec 2014, Apr Jul Aug Dec 2015, Mar Jul Aug Oct 2016, Feb Jul 2017, Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) || Judge (34): every month from Nov 2014 to Nov 2016 except Oct 2015, every month from Feb to Jul 2017 except Apr 2017, then Oct 2017, May Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) CCL - Winner (3): Jul 2016 (tied with Flatline), May 2017, Jul 2019 (last one here) || Host (5): Feb 2015, Mar Apr May Jun 2016 DCC - Winner (1): Mar 2015 (tied with Piar) || Host (3): May Oct 2015, Jan 2016
• The two public custom sets I've been part a part of the design team for: "Brotherhood of Ormos" - Blog post with all info - set thread - design skeleton / card list || "Extinctia: Homo Evanuit" - Blog post with all info - set thread - card list spreadsheet
• "The Lion's Lair", my article series about MTG and custom card design in particular. Latest article here. Here is the article index.Rather outdated by now, and based on the old MCC rubric, but I'm leaving this here for anybody that might be interested anyway.
• My only public attempt at being a writer: the story of my Leonin custom planeswalker Jeff Lionheart. (I have a very big one that I'm working on right now but that's private for now, and I don't know if I will ever actually publish it, and I also have ideas for multiple future ones, including one where I'm going to reprise Jeff.)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
(This month's banner is my own elaboration on the art of the card Rally the Peasants by Jaime Jones)
March MCC Round 3
"Curse of Death"
"Please, help! Here someone's dead!"
This is what I heard a passer-by said,
to which I replied: "You want them back?
Just let me work and don't mind the pack!"
I had a trail of Zombies behind,
and among them he did soon himself find!"
-Liliana's rhymes
Main Challenge: Design a Curse enchantment card OR a card with morbid. No DFCs! (please see Clarifications)
Subchallenges:
1- The card is NOT black.
2- The card has CMC 4 or greater.
On the Main Challenge:
• Your card can be a Curse and also have morbid, even though it doesn't have to. Satisfying only one of the conditions (1- being a Curse and 2- having morbid) is enough to pass the challenge.
(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: Monday, March 21st 23:59 EDT
Judge deadline:
Friday, March 25th 23:59 EDTOne of the judges asked a 1-day time extension due to real life reasons.
JUDGES
bravelion83
Moss_Elemental
doomfish
caliburdeath
PLAYERS
admirableadmiral
Guesswork
maplesmall
mirrorentity
shinike1729
sperlman
theazurespirit
TriceDefied
BRACKETS
Judge: bravelion83
Guesswork vs theazurespirit
maplesmall vs mirrorentity
Judge: Moss_Elemental
maplesmall vs mirrorentity
shinike1729 vs TriceDefied
Judge: doomfish
shinike1729 vs TriceDefied
admirableadmiral vs sperlman
Judge: caliburdeath
admirableadmiral vs sperlman
Guesswork vs theazurespirit
MCC - Winner (6): Oct 2014, Apr Nov 2017, Jan 2018, Apr Jun 2019 || Host (15): Dec 2014, Apr Jul Aug Dec 2015, Mar Jul Aug Oct 2016, Feb Jul 2017, Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) || Judge (34): every month from Nov 2014 to Nov 2016 except Oct 2015, every month from Feb to Jul 2017 except Apr 2017, then Oct 2017, May Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here)
CCL - Winner (3): Jul 2016 (tied with Flatline), May 2017, Jul 2019 (last one here) || Host (5): Feb 2015, Mar Apr May Jun 2016
DCC - Winner (1): Mar 2015 (tied with Piar) || Host (3): May Oct 2015, Jan 2016
• The two public custom sets I've been part a part of the design team for:
"Brotherhood of Ormos" - Blog post with all info - set thread - design skeleton / card list || "Extinctia: Homo Evanuit" - Blog post with all info - set thread - card list spreadsheet
• "The Lion's Lair", my article series about MTG and custom card design in particular. Latest article here. Here is the article index. Rather outdated by now, and based on the old MCC rubric, but I'm leaving this here for anybody that might be interested anyway.
• My only public attempt at being a writer: the story of my Leonin custom planeswalker Jeff Lionheart. (I have a very big one that I'm working on right now but that's private for now, and I don't know if I will ever actually publish it, and I also have ideas for multiple future ones, including one where I'm going to reprise Jeff.)
Enchantment — Curse [R]
Enchant player
Whenever enchanted player casts his or her first spell with converted mana cost 2 or less each turn, counter that spell.
"Let your mind be unfettered by petty thoughts."
—Dierk, Geistmage
Enchantment - Curse (R)
Enchant player
At the beginning of enchanted player's upkeep, put four insanity counters on Curse of Whispers, then enchanted player puts the top X cards of his or her library into his or her graveyard, where X is the number of insanity counters on Curse of Whispers.
"I swear! The shrew spoke to me!"
— Odolf, village madman
Enchantment — Aura Curse [M]
Enchant player
Enchanted player plays with the top card of his or her library revealed.
During the turn of each player other than enchanted player, that player may play the top card of enchanted player's library.
"Do not live wondering what could have been. Die now knowing precisely."
Enchantment - Aura Curse (U)
Enchant player
At the beginning of enchanted player's upkeep, each of enchanted player's opponents puts two 1/1 white Human creature tokens onto the battlefield.
"May your name be cursed in every household and your death be sought by all."
Enchantment — Aura Curse (R)
Enchant player
Whenever a creature enchanted player controls attacks or blocks, return it to its owner's hand at end of combat.
Nobody believed Tom when he said all his livestock disappeared in one night.
Enchantment - Aura Curse (R)
Enchant player
Whenever enchanted player taps a land for mana, you may add one mana to your mana pool of any type that land produced.
"What is yours is also mine."
— Alharov, Kessig druid
Judge: bravelion83
Guesswork vs theazurespirit
maplesmall vs mirrorentity
Judge: Moss_Elemental
maplesmall vs mirrorentity
shinike1729 vs TriceDefied
Judge: doomfish
shinike1729 vs TriceDefied
admirableadmiral vs sperlman
Judge: caliburdeath
admirableadmiral vs sperlman
Guesswork vs theazurespirit
Judgments complete. Not final until deadline. Sorry for being later than usual this time. Real life got in the way.
Check my "Mark of Quality" articles (link in signature) for a list of the most common Quality mistakes to avoid.
Challenges: what counts is always the letter of the law, unless explicit specifications of the host.
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.
Design
(1/3) Appeal - Some Timmies might like the feeling of stealing things from the opponent's deck (griefers are a subset of Timmy after all). Johnny might try something, but having to rely on the opponent's deck to give him the right thing isn't the best for him. Spike hates that aspect of the card even more, even though at least he likes seeing what his opponent is drawing.
(1/3) Elegance - This card takes a few reads to grasp well, but it couldn't have been any better given what it does.
Development
(3/3) Viability - Everything is in color and I can totally see this deserving mythic rarity.
(1/3) Balance - I'm not sure I'd play this in limited. Maybe, but maybe not. Yes, it can give you card advantage provided you have the means to pay the costs of the cards you're stealing (and reminder text "You still pay their costs" would have been nice even though it's not mandatory), but I'd probably play things that directly affect the board before this. In constructed, having to rely on the opponent's deck is a weakness that probably makes this almost unplayable. I think this card has the potential to be really unfun in casual environments: I don't know many players that like seeing their things stolen and played against them.
Creativity
(2.5/3) Uniqueness - Playing with the top card revealed isn't particularly new but the use you do of that here is. I can't think of any other card that does something "during the turn of each player other than" a specific opponent.
(3/3) Flavor - I absolutely love the flavor text! It's relatable, and it makes a lot of sense with the card concept and the mechanics, as does the name. "Curse of Stolen Futures" would also have been a very good name, probably even more fitting with the mechanics, but we're splitting hairs here. Very well done in this department.
Polish
(3/3) Quality - I can't find any precedent for the wording of the duration of the last ability. That wording reads a bit strange to me, but it looks like it's a totally new thing and I agree the one you proposed seems the clearest possible wording. Just mentioning this, no deduction.
(2/2) Main Challenge - Good.
(2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
Total: 18.5/25
Design
(2.5/3) Appeal - Timmy likes tokens, he just have probably liked a single bigger one even better. Spike, at the contrary, likes the potential of swarming the board with 1/1 tokens and going as wide as he can. He also likes that the effect is repeatable, and that can make it worth the mana cost. Johnny is already thinking of how to exploit the tokens. Johnny/Spikes, in particular, are surely thinking which Anthem effect is the best to pump the tokens.
(3/3) Elegance - I see no particular problems here.
Development
(2.5/3) Viability - Everything is in color. The relatively high mana cost probably makes this fine at uncommon. I could also see this as a rare: two tokens a turn are not to be underestimated.
(2/3) Balance - As I just said, you have to not underestimate the potential of putting two tokens a turn onto the battlefield. The timing of the tokens' creation is relevant too: right on time to block your opponent's imminent attack or else to not have summoning sickness when your turn comes. You can't really compare this to cards like Bitterblossom, but there's something vaguely reminiscent here. The tokens here don't fly but they are two, and the mana cost is much higher. I think this is playable in limited, but will need to built around to be playable in constructed. I see no problems in casual. In multiplayer, this gets really interesting as not only you but also the enchanted player's other opponents will get the tokens, so who do you target? That's a very interesting political decision for those players that, unlike myself, like such aspects.
Creativity
(3/3) Uniqueness - I didn't think it could be true (so good that I checked Gatherer to be sure), but it looks like none of the existing Curses refers to "enchanted player's opponents" and has them do something. It's one of those things that feels like it just has to have already been done, but then you check and you discover that indeed it's never been done.
(2.5/3) Flavor - The name and flavor text are good and they make sense with one another. The link to the card's mechanics is not as apparent but it's there: all the Humans that will appear at the same time are the "all" that "seek your death". It took some moments for me to see it, but it makes sense.
Polish
(3/3) Quality - All good here.
(2/2) Main Challenge - Good.
(2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
Total: 22.5/25
Design
(1.5/3) Appeal - Timmy likes making his creatures bigger more than making his opponent's ones smaller. The exact opposite is true for Spike, even though for six mana he'll play a sweeper over this. Why making the opponent's creatures smaller if he can just get rid of them for the same amount of mana? Johnny's first thought is "how can I take advantage of enchanting myself with this?" and that is a really very nice challenge for him to solve.
(3/3) Elegance - Short and immediately understandable. Perfect.
Development
(2.5/3) Viability - Godhead of Awe shows this effect is in both colors' pie. I'm not sure this deserves to be mythic, I could also see this at regular rare. It's debatable.
(2/3) Balance - This is a pseudo-Wrath in limited, so it's definitely playable there. In constructed you will have to ask yourself if you prefer a lasting effect that doesn't get rid of opposing creatures right away or vice versa. If the former is the case, you'll play this, while in the latter case you'll play any Wrath effect available in the format over this. Some players could find a little unfun to see every creature of theirs, even future ones, demoted to humble 1/1s, but that's kind of the point of the card.
Creativity
(1.5/3) Uniqueness - Humility and Godhead of Awe already exist, so this is not exactly new design space. Still, the fact that it's asymmetric, unlike all such existing cards, is an interesting new twist.
(3/3) Flavor - The flavor is good: name, flavor text, and mechanics make sense together. I wish I could have said the name was mediocre!
Polish
(2.5/3) Quality - I see two mistakes in the flavor text, probably just two typos: the semicolon should be a colon (doesn't feel like deserving a deduction by itself) and the word "insignificance" is missing an "n", the one right after the "g" (half a point deducted).
(2/2) Main Challenge - Good.
(2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
Total: 20/25
Design
(2/3) Appeal - Timmy likes doubling his mana to play bigger and better creatures and will play this on himself 100% of the time. Johnny might like to have double the mana if he needs it. Spike will mostly play this on his opponent to try to paralyze them ("You want mana to cast your spells? Ok, you can have it if you give it to me too! You don't want to give me mana? Oh, that's too bad... no mana for you either then!"), which is probably the intent here given the flavor. Still, there must be better ways for him to spend six mana.
(2/3) Elegance - The mechanics are short and understandable, though the asymmetry between the effect when you put this on yourself and on your opponent hurts a bit here.
Development
(3/3) Viability - There's no doubt the effect is green. Rarity feels appropriate as this affects all of enchanted player's lands, not just one.
(1/3) Balance - I'm not sure I'd play this in limited. Doubling your mana is tempting, but this doesn't affect the board in any meaningful way and anyway comes down when I already have a lot of mana. The same consideration can be made in constructed, and there it's even magnified! (Today I feel like making puns...) I can't see this getting competitive play. At the same time, I think many casual players will like this: they are less likely to care about the high mana cost and more likely to rate highly the ability to increase your mana.
Creativity
(2/3) Uniqueness - The fact that this is a Curse that you'll want to put onto yourself the majority of the time, while still being able to enchant the opponent if you want, is definitely new. It doesn't work particularly well with the flavor though.
(1.5/3) Flavor - The name is acceptable even if maybe not the best (I don't have any particular alternative in mind though). The flavor text really feels too generic to me, even though I understand the connection to the mechanics and the attribution helps lessen that feeling somewhat.
Polish
(3/3) Quality - There should be no space between the long dash and the name in the flavor text attribution, but that doesn't feel enough to deserve a deduction. At least you rightly put that attribution on its own line.
(2/2) Main Challenge - Good.
(2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
Total: 18.5/25
Guesswork: 18.5
theazurespirit: 22.5
maplesmall: 18.5
mirrorentity: 20
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.)
(1/3) Appeal: Only Johnny might play with this.
(3/3) Elegance: No problems here.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: No problems here.
(1/3) Balance: Most of the time, you'll be getting the mana on your opponent's turns, so maybe this should cost less, and even then, you'll be limited to using that mana for activated abilities or card that can be played at instant speed.
Creativity -
(3/3) Uniqueness: There's nothing else like this.
(1/3) Flavor: I feel that neither the name nor the flavour text fits what the card.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: No problems here.
(2/2) Main Challenge: Met
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both met.
Total: 19/25
(1/3) Appeal: Timmy likes it. Johnny sees little combo potential. Spike would like to see it cheaper to cast.
(3/3) Elegance: No problems here.
Development -
(1/3) Viability: It could have been rare and just blue.
(3/3) Balance: Six mana seems reasonable for a permanent Polymorphist's Jest
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: There are other cards that turn creatures into 1/1's. Some affect only your opponent's creature, too.
(2/3) Flavor: You could have called it Curse of Humility.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality:
(2/2) Main Challenge: Met
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both met
Total: 19/25
(2/3) Appeal: Timmy might like this. Spike would love this.
(3/3) Elegance: No problems here.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: No problems here.
(2/3) Balance: It would inconvenience aggressive decks, that's for sure. Maybe a little too much.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: There are creatures that bounce any creature it blocked.
(3/3) Flavor: Nice flavour text.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: No problems here.
(2/2) Main Challenge: Met.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both met.
Total: 22/25
(1.5/3) Appeal: Timmy might be underwhelmed after Vorinclex, but might play with it. Johnny might not see any combo potential. Spike might play with it, though.
(3/3) Elegance: No problems here.
Development -
(2/3) Viability: I know Vorinclex, Voice of Hunger does the same thing, but New Phyrexia didn't show much respect for the colour pie. I think it should be black instead of green.
(2/3) Balance: This is almost bad as any card that locks down your opponent. Sure, there are cards like Seedborn Muse and Prophet of Kruphix, but the player will not have any fun. I think this should cost a little more.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: Obviously inspired by Vorinclex, Voice of Hunger.
(3/3) Flavor: No problems here.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: No problems here.
(2/2) Main Challenge: Met
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both met
Total: 20.5/25
As always, no complaints.
(1/3) Appeal: This card has little room for Johnny to play. It isn't a big enough effect for Timmy. This could easily fit into a Spike's strategy.
(2.5/3) Elegance: This may require a reread but doesn't have any particular issues.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: This effect is well within white and blue's color pie. Countering spells each turn is a rare effect.
(2.5/3) Balance: I'm not actually certain this would see play in any format. It could see some Limited play, but coming down on turn 4, which is the best-case scenario, it has likely already missed some spells, and the majority of spells in limited are cmc 3+. It's also a poor topdeck. However it does shut off some actions on its controller's turn, so it's got that for it. The only place I could see this in constructed would be in a Standard control deck's sideboard against aggro, though that's not a bad place to be. Casual control decks would enjoy this.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: Erayo's Essence and [Kira, Great Glass-Spinner have countered the first spell of a condition each turn, while Gaddock Teeg has prevented big spells from being cast. However, no card yet has prevented small spells being cast this way.
(2.5/3) Flavor: The name and flavor text both sound professional and work well with the effect. However, they don't really work very well with eachother.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: No problems here.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: All good.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both filled.
Total: 20.5/25
(2.5/3) Appeal: Mill is generally something Johnny likes. This card offers some room to play with counter manipulation, but otherwise I don't think Johnny would enjoy it too mch. Tammy isn't usually interested in mill, but the numbers on this get big quite quickly and without much work. Ultimately, however, I think this card appeals most to Spike, simply for the speed at which it can win with simple protection.
(2/3) Elegance: I question your use of four counters. Why not have the player mill four cards for each counter and put only one on each upkeep? It's unusual for cards to have so quickly growing tracking requirements. Otherwise, no problem.
Development -
(2.5/3) Viability: Mill is easily blue. Im not sure this effect would need to be rare, if it weren't for how pushed it was, but it's not terrible there.
(0/3) Balance: This is extremely oppressive in Limited. A 3-turn clock that comes down turn 4, wins through a method players can rarely reverse, and is a type for which removal in limited isn't common? In Standard this card would be an extremely good control finisher, and perhaps enable its own archetype. Heliod's Pilgrim becomes Standard playable. Mainboarding enchantment removal probably becomes necessary. This is a format-warping card. It could even see play as a Modern control finisher.
Creativity -
(1/3) Uniqueness: This is not the first curse to mill (Curse of the Bloody Tome), this is not the first card to mill based on the number of counters (Grindclock). The only part of this that's unique is that it's the first curse to use counters.
(2/3) Flavor: The flavor is fine. Mill is often compared to insanity in sets without the Madness mechanic. I would expect something in the name to indicate the growing nature of the effect.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: No issues here.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: All good.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both filled.
Total: 17/25
(1/3) Appeal: Timmy likes the possibility of taking an opponents threat, as does spike, but both would probably prefer to play their own. Jenny likes the possibilities of library manipulation or grabbing the opponent's stuff, but again would probably prefer to play her own, more synergistic stuff.
(2/3) Elegance: While it's probably the best way to state the effect, "During the turn of each player other than enchanted player" is rather clumsy and may need to be reread. Otherwise good.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: Playing the opponent's cards is usually in blue, as is playing with the top of the library revealed. This feels fine at mythic.
(1/3) Balance: This is difficult to evaluate, but seems fairly weak. In limited, it can grant you card advantage, information, and control of your opponents draws, but it's incredibly swingy and, if you play their lands to reduce that swinginess, it can end up benefiting them. I think this would be fine as a 4-drop, perhaps even 3. It certainly wouldn't see competitive constructed play, but EDH and casual decks would love it.
Creativity -
(3/3) Uniqueness: While cards in the past have allowed players to play other players' cards, e.g. Bribery, Sen Triplets, never before has it been in this way.Also, no card has an opponent, specifically, play with the top card of their library revealed.
(2.5/3) Flavor: Fairly solid and accurate name and flavor text. My only complaint is the "die now" in the flavor text. This hardly expedites their death.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: No issues.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: All good
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both filled
Total: 19.5/25
(1.5/3) Appeal: Tammy kinda likes the possibility of a lot of tokens, but it takes to long from casting to payoff for her. There isn't much for Johnny here. Spike likes getting two tokens per turn for sure.
(3/3) Elegance: No problems here.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: This is not a problem in white. It almost feels like a simplified curse version of [[Assemble the Legion]], so I think uncommon is fine.
(2/3) Balance: This card might be a little strong in Limited. It's an uncommon that can absolutely take over the game. However, at 5 mana, it's not too terrible. This probably costs too much for Standard, but that's not certain, it could see play in the right shell. Casual would certainly enjoy it.
Creativity -
(1/3) Uniqueness: No curse yet deals with tokens, however the mechanical idea isn't really new (Akroan Horse).
(3/3) Flavor: The name and flavor text sound professional and synergize with eachother and the card's effect. My only complaint is that it doesn't relate to Pariah and Pariah's Shield :).
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: All good
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both filled
Total: 20.5/25
Guesswork(19.5) vs theazurespirit(20.5)
(1.5/3) Appeal: Timmy probably doesn't even see the problem. You still get to do everything you want with your creature, right? Then you just play it again. I don't think this holds enough value for Spike. Johnny might just find a use for it.
(3/3) Elegance: Pretty straightforward. A well established mechanic.
Development -
(2.5/3) Viability: It's blue and it's a big effect. I wonder, it could probably have been at uncommon. But it's hard to say how much impact it has.
(2/3) Balance: Again, it's hard to say how strong this is. If everything goes well, your opponent is overwhelmed with creatures he has to cast again.
But most of the time they'll just get the same value as always, by trading. It could work well with armies of tokens. Think of it as a bad one-sided Deathpits of Rath.
A one-sided Pits is pretty nuts, so a bad one-sided Pits is fine. But it's not strong. So I believe this could have been at 4 mana at least.
Creativity -
(2.5/3) Uniqueness: The mechanic of bouncing at the end of combat isn't new, but applying it to multiple creatures is a step that hasn't been made yet. It adds a whole new dimension to it.
(2/3) Flavor: I like the idea of this curse. Your army keeps slipping away and it just won't stop happening! The name is fine, the card is resonant, but the flavortext is really clumsy. It's oddly focused on the part of no one believing "Tom". Why wouldn't they? If the livestock is gone that'd be plain to see for anyone.
Polish -
(2.5/3) Quality: The remindertext (Return it only if it's on the battlefield.) is rather important for a card like this, I would have liked to see it.
(2/2) Main Challenge: Curse enchantment.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Not black and cmc > 4
Total: 20/25
(1.5/3) Appeal: Spike might just appreciate the tempo advantage. I don't think anyone else is fixitated that much on not letting the opponent in on the game.
(3/3) Elegance: Pretty simple and straightforward.
Development -
(2/3) Viability: This ability has been established in green, even though it feels a bit blue. An effect that keeps your opponent from playing cards like that is rather close to the level of fun and interaction land destruction bring with it. I don't see Magic tapping into that design space like that. It was fine on a high cost, high rarity, high profile card like Vorinclex, but this might take it too far.
(2.5/3) Balance: An effect like this might actually be a lot more powerful than it looks. If you think about it, you are pretty much halving your opponents output. Worrysome. But it's probably not that bad.
Creativity -
(1.5/3) Uniqueness: Literally just a part of Vorinclex. But it's an excellent fit for a curse and puts it on just one player. I like that.
(2/3) Flavor: The name is rather fitting. You can just picture a despaired farmer over his rotten crops. A very curse-like thing to do. What I don't like is the executing of the flavortext. It's just cheesy. Fairy-tale evil witch tier. Also how are there going to be harvests, if the field remains barren after the first one? I just don't feel it.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Looks clean.
(2/2) Main Challenge: Curse enchantment.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Green and cmc 4.
Total: 19.5/25
(2.5/3) Appeal: Spike. Certainly Spike. Against other Spikes. Also maybe Johnny. All those pesky counters and enchantment/artifact removals seem to fall into the 2 cmc category.
(2/3) Elegance: The two conditions read a bit bumpy, but you quickly catch the idea.
Development -
(2/3) Viability: I'm not sure what white does in that. Mastery over small spells maybe. Restricting the use to w/u decks. It feels a bit pointless when you think about it. Rare certainly seems appropriate.
(1.5/3) Balance: Now this is hard to say. Is this good in older formats? I mean, most spells there cost 2 or less. But then again, this costs 4. That makes it a bit hard to cast.
Nonetheless it seems rather strong. And against most aggro decks it also would do quite a lot. Almost every deck plays a couple of 2 or less cmc spells. I feel like this might be pretty brutal.
Creativity -
(3/3) Uniqueness: I think we never had anything quite like this. Chalice of the Void comes close, but still plays vastly different.
(1.5/3) Flavor: Inhibition is quite the broad term. I would have wished for something more concrete. Like the flavortext.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Looks good.
(2/2) Main Challenge: It says curse there on the type line.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Not black and costs 4 or more.
Total: 19.5/25
(3/3) Appeal: Timmy and Johnny are excited by milling. Spike might like the opportunity for a nice alternative draft deck.
(1.5/3) Elegance: That's a ton of counters your are putting on that. It reads a bit awkward. Could have been 1 counter and then four times the number of counters. But then it'd read even worse.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: Milling certainly belongs in blue and this card certainly belongs at rare.
(0/3) Balance: Let's compare this card to Grindclock. Your card is to Grindclock, what a space rocket is to a paper airplane. Your card is a four times charged Grindclock, four turns before Grindclock gets there and then it just gets worse.
You get to deck your opponent within four turns. If the opponent happens to have more than 40 cards left in his or her deck you just wait another turn. And it doesn't even come at a cost besides the inital casting cost. And those are just a laughable four mana.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: We had Curse of the Bloody Tome before, but that didn't pose as a alternate win condition quite like yours. I'd say the scale of effect is quite unique.
(3/3) Flavor: Mentionings of shrews always net full points here.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Looks good.
(2/2) Main Challenge: Looks like one hell of a curse to me.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both met.
Total: 19.5/25
admirableadmiral (19.5) vs sperlman (19.5)
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
maplesmall: 18.5 + 19 = 37.5
mirrorentity: 20 + 19 = 39
shinike1729: 22 + 20 = 42
TriceDefied: 20.5 + 19.5 = 40
admirableadmiral: 19.5 + 20.5 = 40
sperlman: 19.5 + 17 = 36.5
Guesswork: 19.5 + 18.5 = 38
theazurespirit: 20.5 + 22.5 = 43
This means our finalists are:
admirableadmiral
mirrorentity
shinike1729
theazurespirit
The final round will be posted in a few minutes.
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.)