And in the end, the culprit is revealed and it put away, justice prevails.
Challenge: Design a card that permanently removes exactly one creature from the battlefield. Doesn't matter where it ends up. All that matters is that it leaves the battlefield. Subchallenge 1: Not an instant. Subchallenge 2: Has converted mana cost 3 or less.
A few clarifications.
What do you mean by "permanently"? I'm understanding this to mean that flicker and Oblivion Ring style effects don't count? What about returning to hand? Top of library? Bottom of library?
And when you say "exactly one", do you mean it can only be used once? Or is it just one creature per use?
Flicker effects and Oblivion Ring effects are out. Returning to the hand or library is okay.
When I say "exactly one," I mean exactly one creature per use. No more, no less.
(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: Saturday, April 30st 2016 23:59 EDT
Judge deadline: I won't add one, but please get it done asap.
Planeswalker - Wimaya [Mythic rare]
+1: Put a 2/1 blue Illusion creature token on to the battlefield. It has "When this creature becomes the target of a spell or ability, or deals combat damage, sacrifice it."
-2: Exile target creature. Its controller scry 1, then draws a card.
-6: Search target player's library for a permanent card, put that card and a token that's a copy of it onto the battlefield under you control. Then that player shuffles his or her library.
{3}
Arresting Officer 2W
Creature - Human Soldier (R)
Whenever one or more creatures attacks you or a planeswalker you control, investigate. T, Sacrifice three Clues: Exile target creature.
2/3
The Cycle of ViolenceBB
Sorcery (R)
Destroy target creature.
While The Cycle of Violence is in your graveyard, any opponent may pay 4 and exile it. If he or she does, that opponent exiles target creature you control and you may search your library for a card named The Cycle of Violence, reveal it to all players, put it into your hand, then shuffle your library. "Revenge only begets more revenge."
- Garruk Restored
Judgments complete and final unless I messed something up (which is always possible, even if I don't think I did).
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.
The Cycle of ViolenceBB
Sorcery (R)
Destroy target creature.
While The Cycle of Violence is in your graveyard, any opponent may pay 4 and exile it. If he or she does, that opponent exiles target creature you control and you may search your library for a card named The Cycle of Violence, reveal it to all players, put it into your hand, then shuffle your library. "Revenge only begets more revenge."
- Garruk Restored
Design (1/3) Appeal - Timmy doesn't like to potentially lose his creatures because of one opponent activating (the choice of word is not by chance, more on this later) the last ability. I can't see anything particular to do for Johnny here. Spike is the one that is most likely to appreciate this card as it's a kind of card that looks very hard to play right, so he can make his (self-supposed) superior skill shine. (0.5/3) Elegance - The last ability is very hard to understand and requires multiple reads to be understood. I had to read it multiple times myself, I can only imagine how a less experienced player would be confused by it. That ability alone makes the card very unelegant, even if all the rest would be fine.
Development (1.5/3) Viability - Despite the card's complexity, there are no problems with the color pie. Black destroys creatures, exiles them, and tutors. As for rarity, this card looks so complex, both in understanding and strategically, that I think it could deserve mythic rarity. At least you didn't make an uncommon!
But wait, there's more... this is also the place to talk about unwritten rules of design. One is that you word your effects to be the clearest possible, and the last ability here is a mess. While not technically functionally equivalent, it would be much clearer and understandable as an activated ability with restricted activation. Technically it's not the same thing because you pass from a static to an activated ability, but in practice the difference in gameplay is irrilevant. I would have put it in the following way:
4, Exile The Cycle of Violence from its owner's graveyard: Exile target creature The Cycle of Violence's owner controls. Then, that player may search his or her library for a card named The Cycle of Violence, reveal it, put it into his or her hand, then shuffle his or her library. Only any opponent may activate this ability.
(2/3) Balance - The fact that this is hard removal that costs two mana is remarkable. Today that's very rare, despite what some players (myself included) would like. I personally didn't see anything wrong with things like Terror or Go for the Throat, and I was quite pleased to see Grasp of Darkness return in OGW (I consider it if not the best card in the set, one of the best), but I digress. To allow yourself to do that today, in the era of awful removal, you needed a drawback, and in fact you have one. Basically, you needed the last ability because you needed a drawback. I think you could have certainly come up with a more elegant drawback, but here I'm judging Balance and I admit the drawback looks quite balanced once you think about it carefully. The opponent has to pay four mana to essentially use a better version (exile vs destroy) of removal him/herself while also having a drawback themselves (necessary because exile effects usually cost even more nowadays), which is to allow you to search another copy in your library. It's a very complicated reasoning, but I can see it. As for playability, removal is always playable in limited. I think that in constructed this could see some play but it would require a specific style of deck, not every deck playing black would want something like this. The "any opponent" clause makes this work better in multiplayer, but it's less powerful there because with multiple opponents it's easier to find one that is able and willing to pay the four mana. In the end, that may even generate some interesting dynamics after all.
Creativity (3/3) Uniqueness - The way this card works makes it definitely unique. (3/3) Flavor - The name fits very well with the gameplay this card generates. The flavor text does too. The main thing I want to mention here is the adjective "restored" paired with Garruk here. That's very interesting, and with a single word you're making me curious to learn how was Garruk restored. You're making me want to know more about the story, which is never a bad thing to do, and often it's a hard thing to do.
Polish (2/3) Quality - Even if you keep the last ability as a static ability (see Viability), "reveal it to all players" is very old templating from an era where templating almost didn't even exist. Today, it would be just "reveal it" (half a point deducted). There should be no space between the dash and the character's name in the flavor text attribution (half a point deducted). (2/2) Main Challenge - Good. (2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
Arresting Officer 2W
Creature - Human Soldier (R)
Whenever one or more creatures attacks you or a planeswalker you control, investigate. T, Sacrifice three Clues: Exile target creature.
2/3
Design (2/3) Appeal - Timmy sees this as a kind of insurance against opposing big creatures attacking him, while he wants to be the one to attack with bigger creatures than the opponent's. Johnny likes investigating to dig deeper into his library, as does Spike, but both would like to have more control over the investigation. Still, Spike really likes the removal ability. (3/3) Elegance - Very simple and very elegant.
Development (3/3) Viability - Investigate is in Bant colors and white can exile creatures without any problem. Rarity looks right. (3/3) Balance - This is certainly playable in a limited format like SOI with plenty of Clue tokens floating around. The removal ability may be enough to see some Standard play in the era of awful removal spells. I see no particular problems in casual or multiplayer.
Creativity (3/3) Uniqueness - Alternative uses for Clue tokens is an area that's been explored very little in SOI (I think it may be only Tamiyo's Journal) and that I've been exploring myself in the DCC too. It's kind of an obvious place to go, but it still feels very fresh indeed, probably because investigate is still new. (2/3) Flavor - The name is very good and fits the card concept very well. No flavor text unfortunately, even though there is certainly room for it.
Polish (2/3) Quality - Investigate is a new keyword so it would certainly have reminder text here, especially given that there is plenty of room for it here (half a point deducted). A grammar mistake in the trigger: "one or more creatures attack you" without the "s" (the verb is plural, half a point deducted). (2/2) Main Challenge - Good. (2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
Planeswalker - Wimaya [Mythic rare]
+1: Put a 2/1 blue Illusion creature token on to the battlefield. It has "When this creature becomes the target of a spell or ability, or deals combat damage, sacrifice it."
-2: Exile target creature. Its controller scry 1, then draws a card.
-6: Search target player's library for a permanent card, put that card and a token that's a copy of it onto the battlefield under you control. Then that player shuffles his or her library.
{3}
Design (1/3) Appeal - Timmy likes planeswalkers and how they affect the board, but in the abilities there's not so much for him here. Johnny and Spike are most excited by the same ability that makes this a break (more on that in Viability): Johnny because he could target one of his creatures too, and Spike because it's permanent removal. Too bad blue is not supposed to get it. (0/3) Elegance - This is the opposite of elegance. Very wordy and too complex. There are too many things going on at the same time.
Development (0.5/3) Viability - Planeswalkers are mythic by default, so no doubt about rarity, and that's the only reason you don't have a full zero here. This card is a color pie break. Not a bend, but a real break, as it does undermine what is meant to be the weakness of its color. I'm talking about the -2, which is not blue in any way. Blue doesn't get to exile (or destroy) opposing creatures directly, and the fact that you're giving blue compensations to the creature's controller does not change it. If anything, that is something white does (the most recent example being Declaration in Stone). Blue at most Polymorphs things, and it should also do that not too efficiently. I said it undermines its color's weakness because blue's weakness is exactly that it has a hard time dealing permanently with things on the battlefield that have already resolved. The -2 here goes directly against that, and that's a huge problem. The card could be printed as a white/blue gold card, but not as is. (1.5/3) Balance - Planeswalkers are by default limited bombs. I think this would see constructed play too, but for the same reason that makes this card a color pie break: it's permanent removal in a color that isn't meant to get it. In the fun department, the ultimate is definitely unfun from the point of view of the player that sees his or her best card getting stolen and duplicated on the opposite side of the table. At least it's good that usually ultimates aren't activated so often.
Creativity (1.5/3) Uniqueness - There are many new details in this card (triggering the illusion ability on combat damage too, the token being 2/1 instead of 1/1, cloning the thing you stole, and maybe more), but the one that stands out the most and would make this card feel unique the most is again the same one that breaks the color pie (permanent removal in blue). (2/3) Flavor - The name is fine and fits with the first ability and maybe the last too. Planeswalkers have no flavor text by default, so that's not a big problem here.
Polish (1.5/3) Quality - "on to the battlefield" should have no space between "on" and "to" (half a point deducted). No commas should separate multiple triggers, that means no comma should be there before "or deals combat damage" (half a point deducted). Scry is a keyword action, meaning that it's inserted in the normal flow of the sentence, so it should be rightly conjugated (in this case "its controller scries 1" in third person, or you could have made the scry optional as in "its controller may scry 1", half a point deducted). (1/2) Main Challenge - The -2 technically meets the main challenge, but you had to make a color pie break to do it. That's not good. (2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
Total: 11/25
theazurespirit: 22
Jimmy Groove: 17
Tesco(black)lotus: 11
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: Spike likes this. That's about it.
(2/3) Elegance: First ability is a little wordy.
Development -
(1/3) Viability: For the token, it should have two separate abilities: “Whenever this creature becomes the target of a spell or ability, sacrifice it” and “When this creature deals combat damage, sacrifice it at end of combat.” But the biggest offence is the second abiity. That is strictly a white ability.
(1/3) Balance: I'm not too crazy about the first ability. Maybe it fits blue, but I feel it's too weak. Despite the sacond ability's “compensation,” it's still unfair. The last ability is Bribery and Acquire on steroids. It's definitely not fun to lose your best card and, to make it worse, the player gets a clone token. Maybe the loyalty cost should be higher.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: The most unique part is the cloning the permanent you get from the last ability. Other than that, there's not much here that hasn't been done before.
(3/3) Flavor: No problems here.
Polish -
(1/3) Quality: “onto the battlefield.” “... under your control.”
(1/2) Main Challenge: Met, but the colour pie was broken in the process.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both met.
Total: 13/25
Design -
(2/3) Appeal: Johnny and Spike would love this.
(3/3) Elegance: No problems here.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: No problems here.
(2/3) Balance: I could see this as 3/3. Other than that, it's okay.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: Tamiyo's Journal made this card feasible. The first ability is new, too.
(2/3) Flavor: Some flavour text would have been nice.
Polish -
(2/3) Quality: “one or more creatures attack...” Also, there should be reminder text for investigate.
(2/2) Main Challenge: Met
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both met
Total: 20/25
Design -
(2/3) Appeal: Johnny might fins a way to keep an opponent from using it. Spike might like it.
(1/3) Elegance: The last ability is badly worded. Bad in that even veteran players might wonder if this can be activated at any time. Also, I'm wondering why I can only destroy a creature but an opponent gets to exile one of mine. It should be either destroy or exile, not both.
Development -
(2/3) Viability: The last ability should be worded as an activated ability.
(3/3) Balance: I have nothing to complain about.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: Though it's quite different, it reminds me a little of the Chain cycle in Onslaught.
(2/3) Flavor: I'm sure his name is Garruk Wildspeaker, not Garruk Restored.
Polish -
(2/3) Quality: “... reveal it to all players...”
(2/2) Main Challenge: Met
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both met
Total: 18/25
As always, no complaints.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
Planeswalker - Wimaya [Mythic rare]
+1: Put a 2/1 blue Illusion creature token on to the battlefield. It has "When this creature becomes the target of a spell or ability, sacrifice it."
-2: Exile target creature. Its controller scry 1, then draws a card.
-6: Search target player's library for a permanent card, put that card and a token that's a copy of it onto the battlefield under you control. Then that player shuffles his or her library.
{3}
Design -
(2/3) Appeal: Timmy likes planeswalkers, Spike will play this card. Johnny senses are not tingling.
(2.5/3) Elegance: Wordy, but it's hard for a planeswalker not to be.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: Pretty aggro for blue, but otherwise no issues.
(2.5/3) Balance: This card is exceedingly dirty if played on turn 3 in limited, but it's a mythic. Plays great in lots of formats.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: Not incredibly unique, but pretty good considering the constraints.
(3/3) Flavor: Artist of THE Unreal? Eh, its sort of iffy.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
(2/2) *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?
(2/2) Subchallenges: One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Total: 23/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Arresting Officer 2W
Creature - Human Soldier (R)
Whenever one or more creatures attacks you or a planeswalker you control, investigate. T, Sacrifice three Clues: Exile target creature.
2/3
Design -
(1.5/3) Appeal: Not truly appealing to any of the psychographics.
(3/3) Elegance: Easy.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: No issues.
(1/3) Balance: I would never play this card in constructed.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: Not unique, but a new spin on an old theme which is appreciated.
(2/3) Flavor: 'Arresting Officer' sounds sort of bland. A name that implies hunting or tracking would have been appreciated.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
(2/2) *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?
(2/2) Subchallenges: One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Total: 19.5/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
The Cycle of ViolenceBB
Sorcery (R)
Destroy target creature.
While The Cycle of Violence is in your graveyard, any opponent may pay 4 and exile it. If he or she does, that opponent exiles target creature you control and you may search your library for a card named The Cycle of Violence, reveal it to all players, put it into your hand, then shuffle your library. "Revenge only begets more revenge."
- Garruk Restored
Design -
(3/3) Appeal: Powerful and tricksy, everyone likes it.
(2/3) Elegance: Words. Also, you destroying but them exiling is a bit unintuitive (although I understand why it's that way).
Development -
(3/3) Viability: No issues.
(3/3) Balance: Incredibly strong in monoblack creatureless control, if that exists in said hypothetical format. It could easily not, so no negative points.
Creativity -
(3/3) Uniqueness: Coolio.
(3/3) Flavor: I prefer "Cycle of Violence." 'The' makes it sound legendary or something.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
(2/2) *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?
(2/2) Subchallenges: One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Total: 24/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Planeswalker - Wimaya [Mythic rare]
+1: Put a 2/1 blue Illusion creature token on to the battlefield. It has "When this creature becomes the target of a spell or ability, or deals combat damage, sacrifice it."
-2: Exile target creature. Its controller scry 1, then draws a card.
-6: Search target player's library for a permanent card, put that card and a token that's a copy of it onto the battlefield under you control. Then that player shuffles his or her library.
{3}
Design -
(2/3) Appeal: Not sure how much this one appeals to Timmies, but I think it appeals to the rest. Planeswalkers power levels are always relatively tough to judge, but Spikes should at least be interested in breaking it.
(2/3) Elegance: It plays around with illusions, but I don't think all the pieces tie together necessarily for a new player, who isn't familiar with Magic's mechanical implementation of illusions. The abilities also don't really have any synchronicity, with all being "good" abilities on their owns and not relying on each other too much. I also think it's strange you added the "combat damage" clause to the illusion. That makes them different from normal "illusion" mechanics. I think you could have changed them to 1/1s and remove the combat damage piece without changing the CMC. I like that you made the cost of it the same as a "baseline" counterspell.
Development -
(1.5/3) Viability: This mostly fits into blue, but I have an issue with the minus ability though; usually when blue exiles something, it puts something else on the battlefield. The idea is that blue can't permanently remove something, so it either bounces them or "transforms" them in a sense. For examples, there's Curse of the Swine, Swan Song, Rapid Hybridization, etc etc. I know you're giving them a card, but it goes against the normal flavor/mechanics of blue exile. I'm sure there are exceptions, but that's the default for blue, and I don't think this card's flavor is enough to justify the mechanical exception.
(1.5/3) Balance: I'd probably have put the exile clause at -3. Look at Jace, the Living Guildpact for comparison, which only allows a bounce at -3. It feels a bit strong to exile and stick around, then tick up next turn and exile another creature. Sure, they are getting to scry and draw a card, but they're way behind on tempo. You could drop this turn 6 and exile a 5/6 CMC creature, then stick around to do it again. Or, if you really need a card to win right now, you could exile your own creature and try to dig two cards deeper for an answer. Part of the weakness in blue is not being able to remove creatures permanently (generally speaking), this would be quite a boon to many decks. Because it's a planeswalker under 3 CMC, it's hard to say whether or not it would be competitive in legacy/vintage. Modern would probably try to jam this into some deck, but I'm not sure if any preexisting ones would. It would go into EDH decks everywhere.
Creativity -
(1.5/3) Uniqueness: All planeswalkers are unique, to some extent; it's one of the benefits of being a very rare card type. The ultimate is the most unique, but it feels almost green with its semi Tooth and Nail qualities to it. As noted before, the first two abilities don't seem too unique, and the abilities don't synergize in any unique way.
(2.5/3) Flavor: I like the callback to Lord of the Unreal. The illusion flavor is well done, but would've been a bit stronger if you exiled the creature from the opponent's library and made a token for yourself, without putting the original onto the battlefield also. (This means you could have dropped the ultimate cost by one or two as well.)
Polish -
(2.5/3) Quality: Looking at Bribery, I believe it should read "for a permanent card and put that into play" and not the comma. Also, I'm a little less sure, but I believe this should first put the card onto the battlefield, and then put the token onto the battlefield. Having both of them done at the same time is awkward. "Its controller Scry 1" reads awful, but it might be the right templating, akin to "Target creature has indestructible." In this case, it might be better just to spell the ability out.
(1/2) *Main Challenge: Yup, but that minus.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Yup, yup.
Total: 16.5/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Arresting Officer 2W
Creature - Human Soldier (R)
Whenever one or more creatures attacks you or a planeswalker you control, investigate. T, Sacrifice three Clues: Exile target creature.
2/3
Design -
(2.75/3) Appeal: I think this has a high amount of appeal. Newbies might find it unappealing, but only because they don't understand the threat it presents.
(3/3) Elegance: All the pieces on this card fit together very nicely. An opponent attacking causes damage/death, which provides a clue. The more the opponent does so, the better the chance he gets caught. Pretty great design.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: This card is right up white's alley. Exile (and a sac clause)? Check. Investigate? Check. Only if others attack you? Check. It feels very white.
(2.75/3) Balance: This card is very strong, in my opinion. With a decent size (2/3), this card can generate oodles of card advantage. In fact, it's probably slightly too strong. It's similar to Bygone Bishop, except this card can generate card advantage each turn without the player doing anything. (Of course, the Bishop can pump out multiple clues in one turn.) And then it trades the Flying for an exile clause. I think I'm leery of how strong this card might be, as you can generate a ton of clues with other cards and start exiling like no tomorrow. But I don't think it's OP, just pushed. Having both draw and removal stapled to a card usually makes it decent. I imagine it would get used somewhere in Modern, at least.
Creativity -
(3/3) Uniqueness: The investigate mechanic is relatively new, and when I did a search on SCG for white creatures that sac'd to exile, I didn't find too many.
(3/3) Flavor: I think it all works great.
Polish -
(2.75/3) Quality: Should be "attack", not "attacks".
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Yup.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Yup yup.
Total: 24.25/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
The Cycle of ViolenceBB
Sorcery (R)
Destroy target creature.
While The Cycle of Violence is in your graveyard, any opponent may pay 4 and exile it. If he or she does, that opponent exiles target creature you control and you may search your library for a card named The Cycle of Violence, reveal it to all players, put it into your hand, then shuffle your library. "Revenge only begets more revenge."
- Garruk Restored
Design -
(1.5/3) Appeal: This probably doesn't appeal to Spikes, and maybe to Johnnies? Timmies probably like it because it says "destroy target creature".
(1.5/3) Elegance: This card is doing quite a bit. I understand I get the intent of the card, but one thing that bugs me: why is the graveyard clause exiling target creatures instead of destroying them? I would think the cycle would both have destruction involved, not one being destroy and the other being exile.
Development -
(2.5/3) Viability: I think it fits into what black can do, power at a cost and all that. It eschews the usual "random restriction" black has with destroying with the exile rider. I'm not sure it's worth it though. It being rare likely makes sense with everything going on with it (exiling from GY, searching for cards, etc etc).
(1/3) Balance: I don't think I would run a BB sorcery destroy target creature spell, while knowing that my opponent could exile a creature I controlled later. This could fit into a niche creatureless mono black, or a deck that planned on winning on turn 4 anyways, but those are likely the only homes I see for it. It also forces you to jam 3 or 4 of these in your deck if you want to get the "full" worth of the card.
Creativity -
(2.5/3) Uniqueness: I like the idea of a card "cycling" for itself, in a sense. I don't think that's been done very often, and there's probably some fertile design space there.
(2/3) Flavor: One thing that bugged me... the quotation is from "Garruk Restored". Now, I know what you're trying to get at, but it makes it seem like he changed his name to Mr. Restored, first name Garruk, which throws me off. As mentioned in the elegance section, I think the GY clause should be destroy instead of exile.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Yup.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Aye, aye.
Total: 18/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
theazurespirit = 24.25
JimmyGroove = 18
tesco = 16.5
Thanks to everyone! Theazurespirit, I hope a card like this gets made for my Ephara deck. Jimmy, I liked what you were trying to do, I just don't think you got there. Tesco, your card was pretty cool, but the blue exile thing was a mistake, in my eyes. I appreciate everyone's submissions!
ANATOMY OF A MYSTERY
Round 4: Case Closed
And in the end, the culprit is revealed and it put away, justice prevails.
Challenge: Design a card that permanently removes exactly one creature from the battlefield. Doesn't matter where it ends up. All that matters is that it leaves the battlefield.
Subchallenge 1: Not an instant.
Subchallenge 2: Has converted mana cost 3 or less.
Flicker effects and Oblivion Ring effects are out. Returning to the hand or library is okay.
When I say "exactly one," I mean exactly one creature per use. No more, no less.
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: Saturday, April 30st 2016 23:59 EDT
Judge deadline: I won't add one, but please get it done asap.
Judges:
Moss_Elemental
bravelion83
LnGrrrR
aurorasparrow
Players:
Jimmy Groove
Tesco(black)lotus
theazurespirit
thenoodlerGood luck, everyone.
Planeswalker - Wimaya [Mythic rare]
+1: Put a 2/1 blue Illusion creature token on to the battlefield. It has "When this creature becomes the target of a spell or ability, or deals combat damage, sacrifice it."
-2: Exile target creature. Its controller scry 1, then draws a card.
-6: Search target player's library for a permanent card, put that card and a token that's a copy of it onto the battlefield under you control. Then that player shuffles his or her library.
{3}
Creature - Human Soldier (R)
Whenever one or more creatures attacks you or a planeswalker you control, investigate.
T, Sacrifice three Clues: Exile target creature.
2/3
Sorcery (R)
Destroy target creature.
While The Cycle of Violence is in your graveyard, any opponent may pay 4 and exile it. If he or she does, that opponent exiles target creature you control and you may search your library for a card named The Cycle of Violence, reveal it to all players, put it into your hand, then shuffle your library.
"Revenge only begets more revenge."
- Garruk Restored
4th place at CCC&G Pro Tour
Chances of bad hands (<2 or >4 land):
21: 28.9%
22: 27.5%
23: 26.3%
24: 25.5%
25: 25.1%
26: 25.3%
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 - Timmy doesn't like to potentially lose his creatures because of one opponent activating (the choice of word is not by chance, more on this later) the last ability. I can't see anything particular to do for Johnny here. Spike is the one that is most likely to appreciate this card as it's a kind of card that looks very hard to play right, so he can make his (self-supposed) superior skill shine.
(0.5/3) Elegance - The last ability is very hard to understand and requires multiple reads to be understood. I had to read it multiple times myself, I can only imagine how a less experienced player would be confused by it. That ability alone makes the card very unelegant, even if all the rest would be fine.
Development
(1.5/3) Viability - Despite the card's complexity, there are no problems with the color pie. Black destroys creatures, exiles them, and tutors. As for rarity, this card looks so complex, both in understanding and strategically, that I think it could deserve mythic rarity. At least you didn't make an uncommon!
But wait, there's more... this is also the place to talk about unwritten rules of design. One is that you word your effects to be the clearest possible, and the last ability here is a mess. While not technically functionally equivalent, it would be much clearer and understandable as an activated ability with restricted activation. Technically it's not the same thing because you pass from a static to an activated ability, but in practice the difference in gameplay is irrilevant. I would have put it in the following way:
4, Exile The Cycle of Violence from its owner's graveyard: Exile target creature The Cycle of Violence's owner controls. Then, that player may search his or her library for a card named The Cycle of Violence, reveal it, put it into his or her hand, then shuffle his or her library. Only any opponent may activate this ability.
(2/3) Balance - The fact that this is hard removal that costs two mana is remarkable. Today that's very rare, despite what some players (myself included) would like. I personally didn't see anything wrong with things like Terror or Go for the Throat, and I was quite pleased to see Grasp of Darkness return in OGW (I consider it if not the best card in the set, one of the best), but I digress. To allow yourself to do that today, in the era of awful removal, you needed a drawback, and in fact you have one. Basically, you needed the last ability because you needed a drawback. I think you could have certainly come up with a more elegant drawback, but here I'm judging Balance and I admit the drawback looks quite balanced once you think about it carefully. The opponent has to pay four mana to essentially use a better version (exile vs destroy) of removal him/herself while also having a drawback themselves (necessary because exile effects usually cost even more nowadays), which is to allow you to search another copy in your library. It's a very complicated reasoning, but I can see it. As for playability, removal is always playable in limited. I think that in constructed this could see some play but it would require a specific style of deck, not every deck playing black would want something like this. The "any opponent" clause makes this work better in multiplayer, but it's less powerful there because with multiple opponents it's easier to find one that is able and willing to pay the four mana. In the end, that may even generate some interesting dynamics after all.
Creativity
(3/3) Uniqueness - The way this card works makes it definitely unique.
(3/3) Flavor - The name fits very well with the gameplay this card generates. The flavor text does too. The main thing I want to mention here is the adjective "restored" paired with Garruk here. That's very interesting, and with a single word you're making me curious to learn how was Garruk restored. You're making me want to know more about the story, which is never a bad thing to do, and often it's a hard thing to do.
Polish
(2/3) Quality - Even if you keep the last ability as a static ability (see Viability), "reveal it to all players" is very old templating from an era where templating almost didn't even exist. Today, it would be just "reveal it" (half a point deducted). There should be no space between the dash and the character's name in the flavor text attribution (half a point deducted).
(2/2) Main Challenge - Good.
(2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
Total: 17/25
Design
(2/3) Appeal - Timmy sees this as a kind of insurance against opposing big creatures attacking him, while he wants to be the one to attack with bigger creatures than the opponent's. Johnny likes investigating to dig deeper into his library, as does Spike, but both would like to have more control over the investigation. Still, Spike really likes the removal ability.
(3/3) Elegance - Very simple and very elegant.
Development
(3/3) Viability - Investigate is in Bant colors and white can exile creatures without any problem. Rarity looks right.
(3/3) Balance - This is certainly playable in a limited format like SOI with plenty of Clue tokens floating around. The removal ability may be enough to see some Standard play in the era of awful removal spells. I see no particular problems in casual or multiplayer.
Creativity
(3/3) Uniqueness - Alternative uses for Clue tokens is an area that's been explored very little in SOI (I think it may be only Tamiyo's Journal) and that I've been exploring myself in the DCC too. It's kind of an obvious place to go, but it still feels very fresh indeed, probably because investigate is still new.
(2/3) Flavor - The name is very good and fits the card concept very well. No flavor text unfortunately, even though there is certainly room for it.
Polish
(2/3) Quality - Investigate is a new keyword so it would certainly have reminder text here, especially given that there is plenty of room for it here (half a point deducted). A grammar mistake in the trigger: "one or more creatures attack you" without the "s" (the verb is plural, half a point deducted).
(2/2) Main Challenge - Good.
(2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
Total: 22/25
Design
(1/3) Appeal - Timmy likes planeswalkers and how they affect the board, but in the abilities there's not so much for him here. Johnny and Spike are most excited by the same ability that makes this a break (more on that in Viability): Johnny because he could target one of his creatures too, and Spike because it's permanent removal. Too bad blue is not supposed to get it.
(0/3) Elegance - This is the opposite of elegance. Very wordy and too complex. There are too many things going on at the same time.
Development
(0.5/3) Viability - Planeswalkers are mythic by default, so no doubt about rarity, and that's the only reason you don't have a full zero here. This card is a color pie break. Not a bend, but a real break, as it does undermine what is meant to be the weakness of its color. I'm talking about the -2, which is not blue in any way. Blue doesn't get to exile (or destroy) opposing creatures directly, and the fact that you're giving blue compensations to the creature's controller does not change it. If anything, that is something white does (the most recent example being Declaration in Stone). Blue at most Polymorphs things, and it should also do that not too efficiently. I said it undermines its color's weakness because blue's weakness is exactly that it has a hard time dealing permanently with things on the battlefield that have already resolved. The -2 here goes directly against that, and that's a huge problem. The card could be printed as a white/blue gold card, but not as is.
(1.5/3) Balance - Planeswalkers are by default limited bombs. I think this would see constructed play too, but for the same reason that makes this card a color pie break: it's permanent removal in a color that isn't meant to get it. In the fun department, the ultimate is definitely unfun from the point of view of the player that sees his or her best card getting stolen and duplicated on the opposite side of the table. At least it's good that usually ultimates aren't activated so often.
Creativity
(1.5/3) Uniqueness - There are many new details in this card (triggering the illusion ability on combat damage too, the token being 2/1 instead of 1/1, cloning the thing you stole, and maybe more), but the one that stands out the most and would make this card feel unique the most is again the same one that breaks the color pie (permanent removal in blue).
(2/3) Flavor - The name is fine and fits with the first ability and maybe the last too. Planeswalkers have no flavor text by default, so that's not a big problem here.
Polish
(1.5/3) Quality - "on to the battlefield" should have no space between "on" and "to" (half a point deducted). No commas should separate multiple triggers, that means no comma should be there before "or deals combat damage" (half a point deducted). Scry is a keyword action, meaning that it's inserted in the normal flow of the sentence, so it should be rightly conjugated (in this case "its controller scries 1" in third person, or you could have made the scry optional as in "its controller may scry 1", half a point deducted).
(1/2) Main Challenge - The -2 technically meets the main challenge, but you had to make a color pie break to do it. That's not good.
(2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
Total: 11/25
theazurespirit: 22
Jimmy Groove: 17
Tesco(black)lotus: 11
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: Spike likes this. That's about it.
(2/3) Elegance: First ability is a little wordy.
Development -
(1/3) Viability: For the token, it should have two separate abilities: “Whenever this creature becomes the target of a spell or ability, sacrifice it” and “When this creature deals combat damage, sacrifice it at end of combat.” But the biggest offence is the second abiity. That is strictly a white ability.
(1/3) Balance: I'm not too crazy about the first ability. Maybe it fits blue, but I feel it's too weak. Despite the sacond ability's “compensation,” it's still unfair. The last ability is Bribery and Acquire on steroids. It's definitely not fun to lose your best card and, to make it worse, the player gets a clone token. Maybe the loyalty cost should be higher.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: The most unique part is the cloning the permanent you get from the last ability. Other than that, there's not much here that hasn't been done before.
(3/3) Flavor: No problems here.
Polish -
(1/3) Quality: “onto the battlefield.” “... under your control.”
(1/2) Main Challenge: Met, but the colour pie was broken in the process.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both met.
Total: 13/25
(2/3) Appeal: Johnny and Spike would love this.
(3/3) Elegance: No problems here.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: No problems here.
(2/3) Balance: I could see this as 3/3. Other than that, it's okay.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: Tamiyo's Journal made this card feasible. The first ability is new, too.
(2/3) Flavor: Some flavour text would have been nice.
Polish -
(2/3) Quality: “one or more creatures attack...” Also, there should be reminder text for investigate.
(2/2) Main Challenge: Met
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both met
Total: 20/25
(2/3) Appeal: Johnny might fins a way to keep an opponent from using it. Spike might like it.
(1/3) Elegance: The last ability is badly worded. Bad in that even veteran players might wonder if this can be activated at any time. Also, I'm wondering why I can only destroy a creature but an opponent gets to exile one of mine. It should be either destroy or exile, not both.
Development -
(2/3) Viability: The last ability should be worded as an activated ability.
(3/3) Balance: I have nothing to complain about.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: Though it's quite different, it reminds me a little of the Chain cycle in Onslaught.
(2/3) Flavor: I'm sure his name is Garruk Wildspeaker, not Garruk Restored.
Polish -
(2/3) Quality: “... reveal it
to all players...”(2/2) Main Challenge: Met
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both met
Total: 18/25
As always, no complaints.
Design -
(2/3) Appeal: Timmy likes planeswalkers, Spike will play this card. Johnny senses are not tingling.
(2.5/3) Elegance: Wordy, but it's hard for a planeswalker not to be.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: Pretty aggro for blue, but otherwise no issues.
(2.5/3) Balance: This card is exceedingly dirty if played on turn 3 in limited, but it's a mythic. Plays great in lots of formats.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: Not incredibly unique, but pretty good considering the constraints.
(3/3) Flavor: Artist of THE Unreal? Eh, its sort of iffy.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
(2/2) *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?
(2/2) Subchallenges: One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Total: 23/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Design -
(1.5/3) Appeal: Not truly appealing to any of the psychographics.
(3/3) Elegance: Easy.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: No issues.
(1/3) Balance: I would never play this card in constructed.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: Not unique, but a new spin on an old theme which is appreciated.
(2/3) Flavor: 'Arresting Officer' sounds sort of bland. A name that implies hunting or tracking would have been appreciated.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
(2/2) *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?
(2/2) Subchallenges: One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Total: 19.5/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Design -
(3/3) Appeal: Powerful and tricksy, everyone likes it.
(2/3) Elegance: Words. Also, you destroying but them exiling is a bit unintuitive (although I understand why it's that way).
Development -
(3/3) Viability: No issues.
(3/3) Balance: Incredibly strong in monoblack creatureless control, if that exists in said hypothetical format. It could easily not, so no negative points.
Creativity -
(3/3) Uniqueness: Coolio.
(3/3) Flavor: I prefer "Cycle of Violence." 'The' makes it sound legendary or something.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
(2/2) *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?
(2/2) Subchallenges: One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Total: 24/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Jimmy (24)
Tesco (23)
Azure (19.5)
4th place at CCC&G Pro Tour
Chances of bad hands (<2 or >4 land):
21: 28.9%
22: 27.5%
23: 26.3%
24: 25.5%
25: 25.1%
26: 25.3%
Design -
(2/3) Appeal: Not sure how much this one appeals to Timmies, but I think it appeals to the rest. Planeswalkers power levels are always relatively tough to judge, but Spikes should at least be interested in breaking it.
(2/3) Elegance: It plays around with illusions, but I don't think all the pieces tie together necessarily for a new player, who isn't familiar with Magic's mechanical implementation of illusions. The abilities also don't really have any synchronicity, with all being "good" abilities on their owns and not relying on each other too much. I also think it's strange you added the "combat damage" clause to the illusion. That makes them different from normal "illusion" mechanics. I think you could have changed them to 1/1s and remove the combat damage piece without changing the CMC. I like that you made the cost of it the same as a "baseline" counterspell.
Development -
(1.5/3) Viability: This mostly fits into blue, but I have an issue with the minus ability though; usually when blue exiles something, it puts something else on the battlefield. The idea is that blue can't permanently remove something, so it either bounces them or "transforms" them in a sense. For examples, there's Curse of the Swine, Swan Song, Rapid Hybridization, etc etc. I know you're giving them a card, but it goes against the normal flavor/mechanics of blue exile. I'm sure there are exceptions, but that's the default for blue, and I don't think this card's flavor is enough to justify the mechanical exception.
(1.5/3) Balance: I'd probably have put the exile clause at -3. Look at Jace, the Living Guildpact for comparison, which only allows a bounce at -3. It feels a bit strong to exile and stick around, then tick up next turn and exile another creature. Sure, they are getting to scry and draw a card, but they're way behind on tempo. You could drop this turn 6 and exile a 5/6 CMC creature, then stick around to do it again. Or, if you really need a card to win right now, you could exile your own creature and try to dig two cards deeper for an answer. Part of the weakness in blue is not being able to remove creatures permanently (generally speaking), this would be quite a boon to many decks. Because it's a planeswalker under 3 CMC, it's hard to say whether or not it would be competitive in legacy/vintage. Modern would probably try to jam this into some deck, but I'm not sure if any preexisting ones would. It would go into EDH decks everywhere.
Creativity -
(1.5/3) Uniqueness: All planeswalkers are unique, to some extent; it's one of the benefits of being a very rare card type. The ultimate is the most unique, but it feels almost green with its semi Tooth and Nail qualities to it. As noted before, the first two abilities don't seem too unique, and the abilities don't synergize in any unique way.
(2.5/3) Flavor: I like the callback to Lord of the Unreal. The illusion flavor is well done, but would've been a bit stronger if you exiled the creature from the opponent's library and made a token for yourself, without putting the original onto the battlefield also. (This means you could have dropped the ultimate cost by one or two as well.)
Polish -
(2.5/3) Quality: Looking at Bribery, I believe it should read "for a permanent card and put that into play" and not the comma. Also, I'm a little less sure, but I believe this should first put the card onto the battlefield, and then put the token onto the battlefield. Having both of them done at the same time is awkward. "Its controller Scry 1" reads awful, but it might be the right templating, akin to "Target creature has indestructible." In this case, it might be better just to spell the ability out.
(1/2) *Main Challenge: Yup, but that minus.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Yup, yup.
Total: 16.5/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Design -
(2.75/3) Appeal: I think this has a high amount of appeal. Newbies might find it unappealing, but only because they don't understand the threat it presents.
(3/3) Elegance: All the pieces on this card fit together very nicely. An opponent attacking causes damage/death, which provides a clue. The more the opponent does so, the better the chance he gets caught. Pretty great design.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: This card is right up white's alley. Exile (and a sac clause)? Check. Investigate? Check. Only if others attack you? Check. It feels very white.
(2.75/3) Balance: This card is very strong, in my opinion. With a decent size (2/3), this card can generate oodles of card advantage. In fact, it's probably slightly too strong. It's similar to Bygone Bishop, except this card can generate card advantage each turn without the player doing anything. (Of course, the Bishop can pump out multiple clues in one turn.) And then it trades the Flying for an exile clause. I think I'm leery of how strong this card might be, as you can generate a ton of clues with other cards and start exiling like no tomorrow. But I don't think it's OP, just pushed. Having both draw and removal stapled to a card usually makes it decent. I imagine it would get used somewhere in Modern, at least.
Creativity -
(3/3) Uniqueness: The investigate mechanic is relatively new, and when I did a search on SCG for white creatures that sac'd to exile, I didn't find too many.
(3/3) Flavor: I think it all works great.
Polish -
(2.75/3) Quality: Should be "attack", not "attacks".
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Yup.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Yup yup.
Total: 24.25/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Design -
(1.5/3) Appeal: This probably doesn't appeal to Spikes, and maybe to Johnnies? Timmies probably like it because it says "destroy target creature".
(1.5/3) Elegance: This card is doing quite a bit. I understand I get the intent of the card, but one thing that bugs me: why is the graveyard clause exiling target creatures instead of destroying them? I would think the cycle would both have destruction involved, not one being destroy and the other being exile.
Development -
(2.5/3) Viability: I think it fits into what black can do, power at a cost and all that. It eschews the usual "random restriction" black has with destroying with the exile rider. I'm not sure it's worth it though. It being rare likely makes sense with everything going on with it (exiling from GY, searching for cards, etc etc).
(1/3) Balance: I don't think I would run a BB sorcery destroy target creature spell, while knowing that my opponent could exile a creature I controlled later. This could fit into a niche creatureless mono black, or a deck that planned on winning on turn 4 anyways, but those are likely the only homes I see for it. It also forces you to jam 3 or 4 of these in your deck if you want to get the "full" worth of the card.
Creativity -
(2.5/3) Uniqueness: I like the idea of a card "cycling" for itself, in a sense. I don't think that's been done very often, and there's probably some fertile design space there.
(2/3) Flavor: One thing that bugged me... the quotation is from "Garruk Restored". Now, I know what you're trying to get at, but it makes it seem like he changed his name to Mr. Restored, first name Garruk, which throws me off. As mentioned in the elegance section, I think the GY clause should be destroy instead of exile.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Yup.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Aye, aye.
Total: 18/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
theazurespirit = 24.25
JimmyGroove = 18
tesco = 16.5
Thanks to everyone! Theazurespirit, I hope a card like this gets made for my Ephara deck. Jimmy, I liked what you were trying to do, I just don't think you got there. Tesco, your card was pretty cool, but the blue exile thing was a mistake, in my eyes. I appreciate everyone's submissions!
Club Flamingo Wins: 1!
theazurespirit: 83.75
Jimmy Groove: 77
Tesco(black)lotus: 63.5
So congrats to theazurespirit.