Another mechanical feature that is in Eldritch Moon is modal spells with escalate. This plays in the same theme of choice we've already seen in Fate Reforged, another set with a high amount of modal spells. Let's see what we can do in that design space.
Main Challenge: Design a modal spell or a permanent card with a modal ability. Please see clarifications.
Subchallenges:
1- More than one mode can be chosen.
2- The card has a monocolored color identity.
On the Main Challenge:
• A modal spell or ability is one that lets you choose between a list of modes, identified by bullet points.
• If you make a modal ability, it can both be activated or triggered, and the cost or trigger can be whatever you want.
On subchallenge 1:
• The following are examples of things that pass this challenge: Commands, "choose one or both", "choose one or more", entwine, escalate. Everything that lets you choose multiple modes in any way counts.
• Choosing the same mode more than once also counts. For example, the Confluences from Commander 2015 would pass this challenge.
On subchallenge 2:
• It means exactly one color in the card's color identity. No gold, no hybrid, no C.
• Remember that color identity includes both mana symbols in the mana cost and in the whole text box. If your card has any mana symbols in the text box, those must all be of the same color of the colored symbols in the mana cost.
This is all I can think of for now. If you have any more doubts, just ask, preferably in the discussion thread.
Quick question about round two. The first setence talks about Escalate, and yet there is actually nothing in the description of the requirements that says to use the mechanic Escalate. So I simply made a monocolored modal spell. Is it supposed to be implied that the card has to use Escalate?
This is already covered in the clarifications spoiler, but I'll repeat: escalate was just the inspiration for this challenge, but you only have to actually use it (or any other mechanic that allows you to choose multiple modes) for subchallenge 1. You can make a traditional modal spell just fine, only be aware that if there's no in-built way to choose more than one mode (and ANY way counts, not only escalate) it won't pass subchallenge 1.
Doubt, permanents with kicker and/or, counts how modal?
No, this does not count. A modal spell or ability is defined as one thay says "choose [some number of options]".
Quote from Comprehensive Rules (SOI Edition) »
700.2. A spell or ability is modal if it has two or more options in a bulleted list preceded by instructions for a player to choose a number of those options, such as “Choose one —.” Each of those options is a mode.
Escalate is just Entwine. I give 0 points in Uniqueness for that mechanic to MaRo.
I agree, even though I might give them (all of R&D, not just Maro) a 0.5 because it is indeed different when there are three or more modes to choose from. With just two modes, they are indeed functionally equivalent. In fact, if I were a designer/developer of Eldritch Moon, I would have had ALL (and not just most) escalate cards have at least three modes.
Also, while most people think entwine is "choose both", in the rules it's actually defined as "choose ALL". This might be something to keep into account in this round if someone sumbits a card with entwine and three or more modes.
Quote from Comprehensive Rules (SOI Edition) (emphasis mine) »
702.41a Entwine is a static ability of modal spells (see rule 700.2) that functions while the spell is on the stack. “Entwine [cost]” means “You may choose all modes of this spell instead of just one. If you do, you pay an additional [cost].” Using the entwine ability follows the rules for choosing modes and paying additional costs in rules 601.2b and 601.2f–h.
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: Thursday, July 14th 23:59 EDT
Judge deadline: Monday, July 18th 23:59 EDT
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.)
Escalate is just Entwine. I give 0 points in Uniqueness for that mechanic to MaRo.
Judge Holder
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
Fluctuating Ooze
Creature — Ooze (R)
When Fluctuating Ooze enters the battlefield, you may pay . If you do, choose both. Otherwise, choose one —
• Put three +1/+1 counters on Fluctuating Ooze.
• Put three 1/1 green Ooze creature tokens onto the battlefield.
2/2
(22 Total) - October 2014; December 2014; January 2015; April 2015; June 2015; August 2015; September 2015; November 2015; December 2015(T); January 2016; March 2016(T); April 2016; June 2016; October 2016; December 2016(T); February 2017; April 2017; December 2017; November 2018(T); January 2019; April 2019; June 2019
(8 Total) - May 2015; May 2016; June 2016; August 2016; October 2016; December 2016; October 2017; May 2019
(7 Total) - September 2015; October 2015; January 2016; March 2016; April 2016; July 2016(T); March 2019(T)
Gather the Howlpack1G
Instant (R)
Escalate — Untap target creature you control. (Pay this cost for each mode chosen beyond the first.)
Choose one or more -
Put a 2/2 green Wolf creature token onto the battlefield.
Creatures you control get +1/+1 and gain trample until end of turn.
Creatures you control gain "G, T: This creature fights target creature you don't control" until end of turn.
Harness the Might2GGG
Sorcery (R)
Choose one —
• Search your library for a creature card with converted mana cost X, where X is the greatest power among creatures you control, put it onto the battlefield, then shuffle your library.
• Creatures you control get +X/+X and gain trample until end of turn, where X is the greatest power among creatures you control.
Entwine 3G(Choose both if you pay the entwine cost.)
Academic CrescendoUU
Instant {R}
Escalate 1(Pay this cost for each mode chosen beyond the first.)
Choose one or more. You may choose the same mode more than once.
• Counter target noncreature spell unless its controller pays 2.
• Each player returns a creature he or she controls to its owner's hand.
• Scry 2.
Tyrannic CrescendoBB
Sorcery {R}
Escalate 1(Pay this cost for each mode chosen beyond the first.)
Choose one or more. You may choose the same mode more than once.
• Target creature gets -1/-1 until end of turn.
• Target opponent loses 1 life and you gain 1 life.
• You draw a card and you lose 1 life.
Doubt, permanents with kicker and/or, counts how modal?
No, this does not count. A modal spell or ability is defined as one thay says "choose [some number of options]".
Very important notice: I just noticed you did not pass round 1 (in fact you're not in the list of players in the OP). I might judge your card anyway after I'm done with official judgments, but be aware that I'm doing this out of competition. In the MCC, only round 1 is free for anyone to enter each month. In the CCL, you can enter for free until round 3. In the DCC, you can always enter for free.
Quote from Comprehensive Rules (SOI Edition) »
700.2. A spell or ability is modal if it has two or more options in a bulleted list preceded by instructions for a player to choose a number of those options, such as “Choose one —.” Each of those options is a mode.
Escalate is just Entwine. I give 0 points in Uniqueness for that mechanic to MaRo.
I agree, even though I might give them (all of R&D, not just Maro) a 0.5 because it is indeed different when there are three or more modes to choose from. With just two modes, they are indeed functionally equivalent. In fact, if I were a designer/developer of Eldritch Moon, I would have had ALL (and not just most) escalate cards have at least three modes.
Also, while most people think entwine is "choose both", in the rules it's actually defined as "choose ALL". This might be something to keep into account in this round if someone sumbits a card with entwine and three or more modes.
Quote from Comprehensive Rules (SOI Edition) (emphasis mine) »
702.41a Entwine is a static ability of modal spells (see rule 700.2) that functions while the spell is on the stack. “Entwine [cost]” means “You may choose all modes of this spell instead of just one. If you do, you pay an additional [cost].” Using the entwine ability follows the rules for choosing modes and paying additional costs in rules 601.2b and 601.2f–h.
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.)
Diminishing Flamechanger3RR
Creature - Elemental Shapeshifter (R)
When Diminishing Flamechanger enters the battlefield, choose any number -
• Put a -1/-1 counter on Diminishing Flamechanger and put a 3/3 red Mutant creature token with haste onto the battlefield. Sacrifice the token at end of turn.
• Put a -1/-1 counter on Diminishing Flamechanger and draw two cards, then discard two cards.
• Put a -1/-1 counter on Diminishing Flamechanger and all other creatures get +1/-1 until end of turn. For fire's light to shine, something must be used up.
4/4
ReconfigurationXUU
Instant (R)
Escalate X
Choose one or more -
Counter target spell unless its controller pays X.
Copy target instant or sorcery spell you don't control unless its controller pays X. You may choose new targets for the copy.
Scry X and draw a card.
Design (2.5/3) Appeal - Timmy doesn't care. Johnny may use the last mode to dig into his library for pieces of his combo or the first one to protect his combo. Spike loves all the modes, as they are all things he wants to do anyway, and loves the flexibility. This is a card for him, and he's definitely excited by it. (0/3) Elegance -
Quote from CR (SOI Edition) »
107.3a If a spell or activated ability has a mana cost, alternative cost, additional cost, and/or activation cost with an {X}, [-X], or X in it, and the value of X isn’t defined by the text of that spell or ability, the controller of that spell or ability chooses and announces the value of X as part of casting the spell or activating the ability. (See rule 601, “Casting Spells.”) While a spell is on the stack, any X in its mana cost or in any alternative cost or additional cost it has equals the announced value. (...)
So all X's are always the same number and you can't choose different X's for the mana cost and escalate. This feels quite unintuitive, but anyway that's the way it works. Though, coupling the X in the mana cost with the same X as the escalate cost generates a tree of possibilities that is very complex to follow. Less experienced players would definitely have a very hard time casting and resolving this card. Let's see what happens for different values of X.
• For X = 0, you can cast this spell for just UU and you can choose all modes for free, but the spell won't be very useful: your opponent will certainly be willing to pay 0 for the first two modes, and scry 0 doesn't do anything. You'll just draw a card, effectively turning this into a cantrip with no other effect.
• For X = 1, the following cases are possible:
- For three mana, you get to choose one between Force Spike, copy unless they pay 1, or Opt.
- For four mana, you get to choose two of those.
- For five mana, you get to choose all three.
• For X = 2, the following cases are possible:
- For four mana, you get to choose one between a Rune Snag (with no other ones in any graveyard), copy unless they pay 2, or Preordain.
- For six mana, you get to choose two of those.
- For eight mana, you get to choose all three.
• For X = 3, the following cases are possible:
- For five mana, you get to choose one between a Mana Leak, copy unless they pay 3, or scry 3 then draw.
- For eight mana, you get to choose two of those.
- For eleven mana, you get to choose all three.
• For X = 4, the following cases are possible:
- For six mana, you get to choose one between a Convolute, copy unless they pay 4, or scry 4 then draw (almost Foresee).
- For ten mana, you get to choose two of those.
- For fourteen mana, you get to choose all three.
• etc...
Now, as an eleven-year experienced player, I have no big problem navigating through that tree of options, but I admit it takes some thinking. If that's true for someone like me, I can only imagine what it looks like to a less experienced player, it must look daunting to them. This card already reads complicated, and it is even more complicated to process. A fixed escalate cost would have helped a lot in processing this card. The fact that the card gets more powerful the higher is the value of X is already taken care of with the X in the mana cost anyway. On top of all this, the card is quite wordy, even if we're not at microtext levels yet.
Development (1.5/3) Viability - Everything is in color and rarity is definitely right for a card with such a high flexibility and that can generate quite strong plays. There is a functional rules problem though:
Quote from CR (SOI Edition) »
400.7. An object that moves from one zone to another becomes a new object with no memory of, or relation to, its previous existence.
608.2b (...) The spell or ability is countered if all its targets, for every instance of the word “target,” are now illegal. If the spell or ability is not countered, it will resolve normally. (...)
608.2c The controller of the spell or ability follows its instructions in the order written.
701.5a To counter a spell or ability means to cancel it, removing it from the stack. It doesn’t resolve and none of its effects occur. A countered spell is put into its owner’s graveyard.
So let's say the first two modes are chosen and the same spell is targeted for both. When Reconfiguration would resolve, the targets are still all legal, so it resolves. The modes are resolved in order. The first mode counters the spell, removing it from the stack. Then the second mode tries to copy the targeted spell, but it's no longer on the stack, it's in the graveyard as a different object, so it doesn't find it and can't copy it. To function as intended, the first two modes should have been reverted: first copy the spell so that both the original spell and the copy are on the stack (with the copy as the topmost object on the stack), then counter the original spell and leave only the copy on the stack, which will eventually resolve. Psychic Rebuttal (which is the only card ever I've found in Gatherer that counters and copies the same spell) works because the spell mastery ability explicitly refers to "the spell countered this way" without targeting it. There is no double target choice, and that's exactly what generates this problem.
(2/3) Balance - In the options tree above (see Elegance), the mana costs in themselves look fine to me, especially when you consider the high flexibility of this card, that makes it easily playable in both limited and constructed. I can definitely see this in Standard, but I think the mana required to get a decent use out of this would keep this out of older formats. This card puts together two of the most unfun things in casual (counterspells and opponents using your own spells against you), but at least you have a way around it in theory.
Creativity (2.5/3) Uniqueness - Escalate is new, in the sense that it's in the most recent real set, and the second mode especially is also new, but in the sense that it's never been done before. I wouldn't have said it beforehand, but I checked Gatherer and it looks like never before a copy effect has been coupled with an "unless they pay X" restriction. The other modes are nothing new though. (2/3) Flavor - The name is very good and I'm amazed it isn't already used. It also makes complete sense with the mechanics. No room for flavor text, but I want to prize how good the name is.
Polish (1.5/3) Quality - As I said in Uniqueness, escalate is new, and that means it should have had reminder text here. While sometimes it can be left out for space issues on some rares and mythic, even though that should be avoided anyway, I tried in MSE and it still fits here, so no reason not to include it (half a point deducted). The first two modes should be switched for the card to work as intended (see Viability, one point deducted here too for a functional mistake). (2/2) Main Challenge - Good. (2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
Gather the Howlpack1G
Instant (R)
Escalate — Untap target creature you control. (Pay this cost for each mode chosen beyond the first.)
Choose one or more -
Put a 2/2 green Wolf creature token onto the battlefield.
Creatures you control get +1/+1 and gain trample until end of turn.
Creatures you control gain "G, T: This creature fights target creature you don't control" until end of turn.
Design (3/3) Appeal - Timmy likes how this affects the board, he would probably like the token to be bigger and would have no problem in paying more mana for it. Spike, at the contrary, likes exactly the fact that this costs the least amount of mana it could cost, and he's quite excited by this. Johnny could maybe use the escalate cost somehow, but I don't think this is a card for him. Timmies like it and Spikes love it. (2/3) Elegance - Wordy but easily understandable.
Development (2.5/3) Viability - Untapping its own creatures is a recent addition to green's color pie, as stated by Maro and visible in cards like Aim High, Burst of Strength, Colossal Heroics, Dragonscale Boon, Savage Surge, Spidery Grasp, Vines of the Recluse. That is an effect, though, not a cost. It also feels more appropriate as an effect rather than a cost, because it's actually beneficial to you, and it's strange to see a beneficial cost. It's still possible though, and there are cases where it's required for the card to work. This is not one of those cases, in the sense that the card would be perfectly functional with a different "real" cost, but admittedly it's still a quite convenient cost if you choose the last mode. Also, there is a hidden real cost in that you still need to have the creatures and have them tapped. Overall, let's just consider it a slight bend, but a quite interesting one indeed. Rarity is definitely appropriate. (3/3) Balance - Very playable in limited, as its modes can respectively affect the board, break stalls, and be removal. I could see this in Standard too. The low cost might let this be at least considered in other older formats (Modern comes to mind), as a flash bear with additional upside it looks quite good. I see no particular problems in casual or multiplayer.
Creativity (2/3) Uniqueness - Escalate is new, and it's not in green in Eldritch Moon, so that's even better. Nonmana escalate cost are already in EMN though. The single modes are also not particularly original. (2/3) Flavor - The name is very good and makes a lot of sense with the mechanics, especially the escalate cost and the first mode. No room for flavor text, but here too I want to prize how good the name is.
Polish (2.5/3) Quality - You used a long dash after escalate (and rightly so, and that makes me understand you can use non-Latin characters), so why not also after "choose one or more"? (Half a point deducted.) (2/2) Main Challenge - Good. (2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
Academic CrescendoUU
Instant {R}
Escalate 1(Pay this cost for each mode chosen beyond the first.)
Choose one or more. You may choose the same mode more than once.
• Counter target noncreature spell unless its controller pays 2.
• Each player returns a creature he or she controls to its owner's hand.
• Scry 2.
Design (2/3) Appeal - Timmy doesn't care. Johnny may use this for protecting or finding his combo. Spike is the one this card is for, and he likes it. The modes may be a little too restrictive for him to be fully excited, but that's necessary for balance, and he still likes it well enough. (2.5/3) Elegance - A bit on the wordy side, but still easily understandable.
Development (3/3) Viability - Everything is in color and rarity feels appropriate. (2/3) Balance - Applying today's standards, a counterspell at UU needs to have restrictions. A double restriction feels good taking also into account the flexibility of a modal spell. The same reason justifies an increase of cost for Curfew to become the second mode and for the scry. Given all this, the mana cost looks fine. The escalate cost may look a bit low, as you can just choose the same mode again and again as long as you have mana to pay for it, but I don't think it's as low as to be broken. As for playability, one could play this in limited even though it's not a given. I see this more as a card for constructed, and control decks will like this. Finally, we have to acknowledge that this card uses mechanics that may not be that fun in casual.
Creativity (2.5/3) Uniqueness - If the Confluences didn't already exist, this would have got full points here. As they do, it gets a close but not perfect score. As only a single cycle with that effect exists, it still feels fresh enough. (1.5/3) Flavor - The name "Crescendo" makes sense with the "more than once" part of the rules text. The word "Academic" is perfectly in color for what it's clearly meant to be the blue part of a cycle, even though I can see the flavor of study only in the scry mode. No room for flavor text.
Polish (3/3) Quality - All good. (2/2) Main Challenge - Good. (2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
When Replicant Wizard enters the battlefield choose two -
Draw a card, the discard a card.
Return target creature card from your graveyard to your hand.
Target opponent discard a card.
2/3
Design (2/3) Appeal - Timmy likes to return his dead creatures to his hand to recast them, but doesn't care that much about the other modes. Johnny can use this to dig into his library for combo pieces or return a creature that's part of a combo and that might have died. Spike likes the card advantage of the last two modes (the first is parity). I have a hard time understanding who exactly this card is meant to be for. Many players will at least have no problems with this, but I don't see anyone getting fully excited either. (2/3) Elegance - The name makes you expect a copy effect that's not there. Except for that, the card is not wordy and very easily understandable.
Development (1/3) Viability - I don't see any green in this card. Probably the second mode is meant to be the green one, but returning specifically creatures is actually black, green can still do that but only as part of a wider "return any card from your graveyard to your hand" effect. Here there are one blue mode (the first) and two black modes (the other two). Usually, when there are no rules problems (and here there aren't any), I attribute half points (1.5) for color pie and the other half for rarity. Rarity is missing, and I can't judge what's not there. As two out of three modes are in color, or if you prefer only two colors out of three are represented (the result is the same), I'll give two thirds of the color pie points, that makes one. (2.5/3) Balance - I see no problem with this card. It's playable in limited provided that the environment supports playing three colors (Tarkir-like). I honestly can't see this card in constructed, it may make a splash in Standard because of the card advantage it can produce, but nothing huge, and certainly not in older formats. No problems in casual or multiplayer.
Creativity (0.5/3) Uniqueness - We've already seen "choose two" in two cycles of Commands, and all modes are things we see in almost every set. The only new thing we have here is "choose two" on a permanent, but that's very weak here. (0.5/3) Flavor - The name feels generic and makes me expect some copy effect in the rules text, which is not there. No flavor text.
Polish (1/3) Quality - I'm judging the text card, as that's what officially counts in this contest. The render is a welcome bonus, but it does not give you additional points. With this premise, in the text card there are unnecessary line breaks and the name is not bolded. As usual, I'll deduct no points for such formatting issues, but I still mention them. That also includes the use of a minus sign instead of a long dash after "choose two", as you may be subject to the non-Latin characters antispam restriction, so I have to give you the benefit of the doubt. I'll also mention the order of mana symbols in the mana cost: before Tarkir, you would have got it right. In Tarkir, Sultai cards have BGU instead. It's not yet clear if that rearranging was only for Tarkir block, or if it's for all wedge cards going forward. As I just said it's not yet clear, no point deduction.
Now let's go to the things I am deducting points for. There's a typo in the first mode: "then" is missing an "n" (half a point deducted). Another one in the last mode: "discards" lacks the third person "s" (half a point deducted). Finally, there's been a little debate in the DCC lately about this, but I do insist that rarity is a fundamental part of a Magic card and must be included in any custom card, especially those meant for contests. I'm going to write an article about that sooner or later (by the way, I'm gathering ideas for a second series of The Lion's Lair, I already have a few ideas, but if anyone would like my own take on a specific topic just let me know). We even have a specific point in the rubric for it (it's explicitly included in Viability). This is a serious mistake, so as usual I'm deducting one whole point for missing rarity. (2/2) Main Challenge - Good. (1/2) Subchallenges - Two modes must be chosen, but it's not monocolored.
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.)
Design - (2/3) Appeal: Looks like a Timmy card. Big effects. Pretty sure Spikes also see the value in this. (3/3) Elegance: Having positive costs always reads weird, but this one reads really simple. It's crystal clear and makes a lot of sense.
Development - (1.5/3) Viability: But having positive costs is just asking for trouble. People will wonder whether they can just pay the cost as often as they want.
It'll be confusing to new players. "How is that a cost? How can I pay by putting 1/1s on the board?" There's little gain in doing something out-of-the-box like this when
you can just make the escalate cost "pay 2 life" and add putting the two 1/1s as an option. In the end it will do things that are rather similar, but follow the more familiar templating.
Red is of course correct and complexity-wise it could be done on an uncommon, as higher rarities won't make things better. (1.5/3) Balance: 5 haste power for 3 mana and buffing all your other creatures is a scary thing. This will cause lots of sudden lethal damage swings in limited. Damage isn't a good way to cost a card like this.
It'll almost always be used for that final alpha strike anyways. Might have a similar use in construced, but probably won't reach Overrun levels of kill potential. What I like is that it's not that bad to play early on either.
You get two 1/1s and swing for 5. That's cute.
Creativity - (2.5/3) Uniqueness:Sunhome Guildmage ventures into similar territory, but yours ventures into interesting new territory for limited gameplay. (2/3) Flavor: Love the name, but what's with that flavortext? Thunder? Burning? What?
Polish - (1.5/3) Quality: When generating tokens first comes the p/t and then the color.
Choose one. get +2/+0 (2/2) Main Challenge: Modes. Check. (2/2) Subchallenges: Both. Check.
Total: 18/25
Design - (3/3) Appeal: Spike is thrilled. I believe Timmy was thought up just to pitch a card very much like this (Verdant Force). (2/3) Elegance: It reads a bit odd with the payment option and then you still get something, even if you didn't pay. It's missing the elegance of Entwine.
Development - (3/3) Viability: Tokens. Counters. You could do those at any color. Rare seems like a good fit. Nothing weird going on. Perfect. (3/3) Balance: 4 mana 5/5 in green aren't that special anymore. Sometimes they don't even see that much play (Deadbridge Goliath) in Standard if I remember correctly.
Still, it's the kind of card development would decide on to be the green efficient powerhouse without pushing it too much. The upsides are neat, but don't overdo it.
Creativity - (1/3) Uniqueness: Ventures in similiar design space as Pentavus, but isn't as exciting. It's simple, efficient, within known perimeters. Entwine on a creature. Nothing too unique. (1/3) Flavor: Ooze seems like the perfect fit. Not sure about 'fluctuating' - I mean that changing part is already what makes it an ooze. Also it's not very fluctuating.
After entering the battlefield it's pretty much constant. Almost too constant for an Ooze. No flavortext is a shame.
Polish - (3/3) Quality: The templating for this one is tricky, but it looks good. (2/2) Main Challenge: Yep. (2/2) Subchallenges: Mono green and optional both.
Total: 20/25
Design - (1/3) Appeal: It's not a combat trick. So there's little value for Spike. It's a one-trick pony, so Johnny doesn't want it either. It does effect three creatures, so it's a larger effect. Maybe Timmy would like this. (1.5/3) Elegance: It's simple, but confusing that you can't target the same creature. It feels like that's what people would want to do with it. Why not let them have their will?
Also using the 'choose' template for something that's not really a choice seems pointless. I mean, you'll choose all any time, unless you are limited by the number of creatures you have - which really isn't a choice.
This could have also been templated with 'up to's and 'another'. I guess you get to choose which creature gets which effect and which effect you want to leave out.
Development - (3/3) Viability: Uncommon seems fine for an effect like this that's a bit on the larger side. It's well within white. Neat. (1/3) Balance: What does this card even want to do? You play it before attacks to make the blocks more awkward? It's just 2 extra damage. What's the sorcery-speed untapping for? When's that ever needed?
I guess it's a counter to Topplegeist. 2 mana isn't much, but I'd never play this over anything that could give me actual card advantage and not just a bit better attack.
Creativity - (3/3) Uniqueness: The templating hasn't been done before. I like how it lets you choose different effects for different creatures, no matter the execution. The idea is great. (0.5/3) Flavor: Sorcery-speed defense? Unified when everbody gets something else? I don't get it. Untapping and +0/+2 has a defense feeling to it, alright.
Polish - (3/3) Quality: Templating like the Confluences. Looks good. (2/2) Main Challenge: Modal. (2/2) Subchallenges: White and multiple.
Total: 17/25
Design - (2/3) Appeal: Looks like a Spike card at first glance. Lots of options. Getting more out of your card. Not sure if Timmy would want to weaken his creature for 'marginal' effects. (2/3) Elegance: This has a LOT going on. The -1/-1 counters are appearing every time, it would have been better to concentrate that into one line. (Like etb put any number of -1/-1 counters on.. for each choose...)
Other than that it just simple effects, easy to process.
Development - (2/3) Viability: Hasty tokens are red. +1/-1 is also still in red. Looting isn't. Red now discards first, then draws the cards. Rare seems appropriate, might have been enough for Mythic Rare. (2.5/3) Balance: The first option makes for a 3/3 haste for 5 that doesn't die to blocks (as you retain the actualy body). with the third option it's a 4/2 that's swinging with a 2/2 that's staying back, which is also fine.
Optimizing your draw is fine. It's a neat toolbox, but could have probably been 5/5, as the effects aren't too strong.
Creativity - (2.5/3) Uniqueness: There's been cards that put -1/-1 counters on themselves as part of a cost, but this is quite crazy. The one-time choice makes for interesting gameplay. (2/3) Flavor: The Diminishing part is a good fit, but that's already got the changing nature of your card covered. I don't like the redundancy of the Flamechanger. Also sounds like he's changing flames.
Is he? Why is the token a Mutant? The flavortext is neat.
Polish - (2.5/3) Quality: Choose up to three would have been a better template than choose any number. (2/2) Main Challenge: Rather modal. (2/2) Subchallenges: Both met.
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
(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
Card: Reaper's CommandBBB
Sorcery (R)
Choose two --
Destroy target creature.
Search your library for a card and put it into your graveyard, then shuffle your library.
Each opponent loses 3 life.
Target opponent reveals his or her hand. Choose a card from it. That player discards that card.
DESIGN
(3/3) Appeal: This card doesn't appeal to Timmies, but it's not supposed to. Rather, it appeals fantastically to both Spikes and Johnnys.
(3/3) Elegance: This card is the pinnacle of elegance in such a way that, at first glance, you can completely understand and evaluate the card. Well done.
DEVELOPMENT
(3/3) Viability: This card makes total sense where it is, and holds a good spot on the color wheel and CR.
(0.5/3) Balance: This seems like two undercosted modes next to two overcosted modes. Unless you need to use an Entomb esque combo, you're pretty much always getting a Thoughtseize and Murder for 3 mana. That's a little bit broken and would completely change formats, especially Standard and Modern, which usually means the card is too powerful to see print.
CREATIVITY
(1.5/3) Uniqueness: Everything about this card is borrowed, from the second to the very last word. The Command cycle was an original concept the first time around, but after two cycles, it's a tiny bit old.
(2/3) Flavor: There is a surprising amount of flavor, as we see four ways the Reaper can, well, reap. However, it's just kind of par for the course in all actuality.
POLISH
(1.5/3) Quality: There's two template errors with the last mode. It should read "You choose a nonland card from it"
(2/2) Main: The Challenge is met.
(2/2) Sub: It's monocolored, it's dual-modal, so you get 2 points.
TOTAL: 18.5/25
Card:
Harness the Might 2GGG
Sorcery (R)
Choose one —
Search your library for a creature card with converted mana cost X, where X is the greatest power among creatures you control, put it onto the battlefield, then shuffle your library.
Creatures you control get +X/+X and gain trample until end of turn, where X is the greatest power among creatures you control.
Entwine 3G(Choose both if you pay the entwine cost.)
DESIGN
(3/3) Appeal: Well, I'll be damned, this appeals pretty well to everyone. Good Job.
(3/3) Elegance: This is just about as elegant as they come. It all makes sense and coherently comes together into something great.
DEV.
(3/3) Viability: This doesn't break or bend anything as far a I know. It fits where it needs to and does so well.
(1/3) Balance: So, this is way too easily an Overrun, and often will be even better, then it also works as a pretty damn good creature tutor. That much versatility on one card is pretty busted.
CREATIVE:
(.5/3) Uniqueness: The most unique part of the card is the greatest power clause, and even that's not too unique. This just looks like a kind of boring mix of Tooth and Nail and Overrun.
(2/3) Flavor: This card doesn't have much flavor that's anything more than par for the course, but it's fine.
POLISH
(3/3) Quality: Everything looks good!
(2/2) Main: It works for the challenge.
(2/2) Sub: Monocolored dual choice, so you get 2 points.
TOTAL: 17.5/25
Card: Malicious Contract2BBBB
Sorcery (M)
Choose one or more -
Exile the top thirty cards of your library, then draw three cards.
Put a 5/5 black Demon creature token with flying onto the battlefield, then sacrifice a non-Demon permanent.
Destroy target creature. You lose half your life, rounded up.
DES.
(2/3) Appeal: This card has its appeal toward Johnnies, and, to a lesser extent, Tims, but fails to do anything toward Spikes. It also only appeals minutely to Johnnies, at that.
(3/3) Elegance: All of the modes are cohesive, make sense, and are easy to comprehend. Good job.
DEV.
(3/3) Viability: All of these modes are rooted in black and the rules, so you're all good.
(1.5/3) Balance: I'm giving this a lower score because it just seems too bad to be played. Maybe 5 mana is right for it, but Triple black is too much. It won't do really anything, as the only time when you'd want to use the first mode is in some Laboratory Maniac deck, where it's counter-intuitive, the second in some weird demon tribal deck (in which case you already have better options), and the third against combo decks, in which the cost is too high. The card just isn't good in really any sense.
CREATE
(1/3) Uniqueness: Look at theseborrowedeffects! That said, they have a unique twist, but one that's not any good.
(2.5/3) Flavor: This seems to be a contract with a demon(s) that costs more than it's really worth. However, it doesn't really delve into it much further than that. Could have gone for some flavor text.
POLISH
(3/3) Quality: Seems we took out all of the bad quality submissions in Round 1.
(2/2) Main: Challenge Get!
(2/2) Sub: It's monocolored, It's dual-moded, it's TWO POINTS!
TOTAL: 20/25
Card: Entreat the River God5UU
Instant (M)
Escalate U
Choose one or more -
Put a 5/5 blue Dragon creature token with flying and hexproof onto the battlefield.
Search your library for an instant card not named Entreat the River God and reveal it, then shuffle your library and put that card on top.
Draw cards equal to target creature’s power.
DES.
(2/3) Appeal: It appeals to Timmies, which is something blue doesn't typically get to do, but it's not good at appealing to anything else.
(2.5/3) Elegance: I had to read the second ability two or three times before truly grasping it, but otherwise it's perfect.
DEV.
(3/3) Viability: This is all within the rules' and blue's grasp of the game. No problems here.
(.5/3) Balance: You see, when a modal spell is created, all modes should be worth around the same, some 1 or two mana more or less. But when you have an ability that's worth 7 mana and an ability that's worth 2 mana at most, that creates some balance problems. It also runs into the problem of effectively not being a modal spell, since you always just want a 5/5 flying hexproof creature at instant speed.
CREATE
(2.5/3) Uniqueness: The middle mode is a been there, done that, sort of deal, but the rest of the card is really fresh and unique.
(2/3) Flavor: I can see the flavor here, I just can't make much sense out of it. Is the dragon the water god? or a scion of it? I is confuse.
POLISH
(2.5/3) Quality: "and" can and should be replaced with a comma in most cases. Pass it on.
(2/2) Main: IT IS MET!
(2/2) Sub: IT IS MET!
TOTAL: 19.5/25
EDIT: I did miscount glurman's total, bringing him to a tie with Voxzorz. Both cards had huge balancing issues, and that's quite important. However, glurman's card was a bit more balanced, and didn't have fundamental balancing issues that couldn't be solved with a small increase in cost, so I have slightly adjusted the scores to give glurman the edge. Sorry about that.
My thoughts are with the friends and family of the Orlando Shooting victims and with the rest of the LGBTQA+ community.
Check out my Newborder Peasant Cube here! http://www.cubetutor.com/draft/37467
Necarg, please don't acknowledge this in any way whatsoever.
True Name Mafia (Win),Clan Contest IX Mafia (Win), Bravely Default Mafia (Loss), BOTAS (loss), BfV (Loss), Ace Attourney (loss)
Rules Advisor before they were eradicated
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
(This month's banner is my own elaboration on the art of the cards Coax from the Blind Eternities and Emrakul, the Promised End, both by Jaime Jones)
July MCC Round 2
"Hard choices"
Another mechanical feature that is in Eldritch Moon is modal spells with escalate. This plays in the same theme of choice we've already seen in Fate Reforged, another set with a high amount of modal spells. Let's see what we can do in that design space.
Main Challenge: Design a modal spell or a permanent card with a modal ability. Please see clarifications.
Subchallenges:
1- More than one mode can be chosen.
2- The card has a monocolored color identity.
On the Main Challenge:
• A modal spell or ability is one that lets you choose between a list of modes, identified by bullet points.
• If you make a modal ability, it can both be activated or triggered, and the cost or trigger can be whatever you want.
On subchallenge 1:
• The following are examples of things that pass this challenge: Commands, "choose one or both", "choose one or more", entwine, escalate. Everything that lets you choose multiple modes in any way counts.
• Choosing the same mode more than once also counts. For example, the Confluences from Commander 2015 would pass this challenge.
On subchallenge 2:
• It means exactly one color in the card's color identity. No gold, no hybrid, no C.
• Remember that color identity includes both mana symbols in the mana cost and in the whole text box. If your card has any mana symbols in the text box, those must all be of the same color of the colored symbols in the mana cost.
This is all I can think of for now. If you have any more doubts, just ask, preferably in the discussion thread.
(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: Thursday, July 14th 23:59 EDT
Judge deadline: Monday, July 18th 23:59 EDT
JUDGES
bravelion83
Necarg
doomfish
PLAYERS
BrainPo
caliburdeath
Clockwork Gamer
Flatline
Folza
glurman
mederer
RaikouRider
sperlman
theazurespirit
void_nothing
Voxzorz
BRACKETS
The round is closed. sperlman is DQ'ed for not submitting a card. Brackets are as follows:
Judge: bravelion83
caliburdeath
Folza
RaikouRider
Judge: Necarg
BrainPo
glurman
mederer
Voxzorz
Judge: doomfish
Clockwork Gamer
Flatline
theazurespirit
void_nothing
Top 2 from each bracket advance to round 3 (the versus round).
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.)
Judge Holder
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
Instant (M)
Escalate U
Choose one or more -
Image credit to:
http://wallpapercave.com/wp/geRqSa9.jpg
http://maxcdn.thedesigninspiration.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Blue-Dragon-l.png
Creature — Ooze (R)
When Fluctuating Ooze enters the battlefield, you may pay . If you do, choose both. Otherwise, choose one —
• Put three +1/+1 counters on Fluctuating Ooze.
• Put three 1/1 green Ooze creature tokens onto the battlefield.
2/2
Sorcery (R)
Choose two --
Reconfiguration XUU
Instant (R)
Escalate X
Choose one or more -
Instant (R)
Escalate — Untap target creature you control. (Pay this cost for each mode chosen beyond the first.)
Choose one or more -
Sorcery (R)
Choose one —
• Search your library for a creature card with converted mana cost X, where X is the greatest power among creatures you control, put it onto the battlefield, then shuffle your library.
• Creatures you control get +X/+X and gain trample until end of turn, where X is the greatest power among creatures you control.
Entwine 3G (Choose both if you pay the entwine cost.)
Academic Crescendo UU
Instant {R}
Escalate 1 (Pay this cost for each mode chosen beyond the first.)
Choose one or more. You may choose the same mode more than once.
• Counter target noncreature spell unless its controller pays 2.
• Each player returns a creature he or she controls to its owner's hand.
• Scry 2.
Tyrannic Crescendo BB
Sorcery {R}
Escalate 1 (Pay this cost for each mode chosen beyond the first.)
Choose one or more. You may choose the same mode more than once.
• Target creature gets -1/-1 until end of turn.
• Target opponent loses 1 life and you gain 1 life.
• You draw a card and you lose 1 life.
Emille, Seven-Sting Dancer Shalin Nariya
Sorcery [Uncommon]
Escalate — Put a red 1/1 Elemental creature token into play.
Chose one or more —
I'm sure you can think of something by yourself.
-----------
Replicant Wizard GUB
Creature - Human Wizard
When Replicant Wizard enters the battlefield choose two -
-----
-----
Original Art link
No, this does not count. A modal spell or ability is defined as one thay says "choose [some number of options]".
Very important notice: I just noticed you did not pass round 1 (in fact you're not in the list of players in the OP). I might judge your card anyway after I'm done with official judgments, but be aware that I'm doing this out of competition. In the MCC, only round 1 is free for anyone to enter each month. In the CCL, you can enter for free until round 3. In the DCC, you can always enter for free.
I agree, even though I might give them (all of R&D, not just Maro) a 0.5 because it is indeed different when there are three or more modes to choose from. With just two modes, they are indeed functionally equivalent. In fact, if I were a designer/developer of Eldritch Moon, I would have had ALL (and not just most) escalate cards have at least three modes.
Also, while most people think entwine is "choose both", in the rules it's actually defined as "choose ALL". This might be something to keep into account in this round if someone sumbits a card with entwine and three or more modes.
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.)
Instant (U)
Choose one or more. You can't choose the same target more than once.
Creature - Elemental Shapeshifter (R)
When Diminishing Flamechanger enters the battlefield, choose any number -
• Put a -1/-1 counter on Diminishing Flamechanger and put a 3/3 red Mutant creature token with haste onto the battlefield. Sacrifice the token at end of turn.
• Put a -1/-1 counter on Diminishing Flamechanger and draw two cards, then discard two cards.
• Put a -1/-1 counter on Diminishing Flamechanger and all other creatures get +1/-1 until end of turn.
For fire's light to shine, something must be used up.
4/4
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
Judge: bravelion83
caliburdeath
Folza
RaikouRider
Judge: Necarg
BrainPo
glurman
mederer
Voxzorz
Judge: doomfish
Clockwork Gamer
Flatline
theazurespirit
void_nothing
Top 2 from each bracket advance to round 3 (the versus round).
Judgments complete, not final until deadline.
Warning: this judgment is very long. I apologize but I had to fully consider all the ramifications of a very complex card.
Design
(2.5/3) Appeal - Timmy doesn't care. Johnny may use the last mode to dig into his library for pieces of his combo or the first one to protect his combo. Spike loves all the modes, as they are all things he wants to do anyway, and loves the flexibility. This is a card for him, and he's definitely excited by it.
(0/3) Elegance -
So all X's are always the same number and you can't choose different X's for the mana cost and escalate. This feels quite unintuitive, but anyway that's the way it works. Though, coupling the X in the mana cost with the same X as the escalate cost generates a tree of possibilities that is very complex to follow. Less experienced players would definitely have a very hard time casting and resolving this card. Let's see what happens for different values of X.
• For X = 0, you can cast this spell for just UU and you can choose all modes for free, but the spell won't be very useful: your opponent will certainly be willing to pay 0 for the first two modes, and scry 0 doesn't do anything. You'll just draw a card, effectively turning this into a cantrip with no other effect.
• For X = 1, the following cases are possible:
- For three mana, you get to choose one between Force Spike, copy unless they pay 1, or Opt.
- For four mana, you get to choose two of those.
- For five mana, you get to choose all three.
• For X = 2, the following cases are possible:
- For four mana, you get to choose one between a Rune Snag (with no other ones in any graveyard), copy unless they pay 2, or Preordain.
- For six mana, you get to choose two of those.
- For eight mana, you get to choose all three.
• For X = 3, the following cases are possible:
- For five mana, you get to choose one between a Mana Leak, copy unless they pay 3, or scry 3 then draw.
- For eight mana, you get to choose two of those.
- For eleven mana, you get to choose all three.
• For X = 4, the following cases are possible:
- For six mana, you get to choose one between a Convolute, copy unless they pay 4, or scry 4 then draw (almost Foresee).
- For ten mana, you get to choose two of those.
- For fourteen mana, you get to choose all three.
• etc...
Now, as an eleven-year experienced player, I have no big problem navigating through that tree of options, but I admit it takes some thinking. If that's true for someone like me, I can only imagine what it looks like to a less experienced player, it must look daunting to them. This card already reads complicated, and it is even more complicated to process. A fixed escalate cost would have helped a lot in processing this card. The fact that the card gets more powerful the higher is the value of X is already taken care of with the X in the mana cost anyway. On top of all this, the card is quite wordy, even if we're not at microtext levels yet.
Development
(1.5/3) Viability - Everything is in color and rarity is definitely right for a card with such a high flexibility and that can generate quite strong plays. There is a functional rules problem though:
So let's say the first two modes are chosen and the same spell is targeted for both. When Reconfiguration would resolve, the targets are still all legal, so it resolves. The modes are resolved in order. The first mode counters the spell, removing it from the stack. Then the second mode tries to copy the targeted spell, but it's no longer on the stack, it's in the graveyard as a different object, so it doesn't find it and can't copy it. To function as intended, the first two modes should have been reverted: first copy the spell so that both the original spell and the copy are on the stack (with the copy as the topmost object on the stack), then counter the original spell and leave only the copy on the stack, which will eventually resolve. Psychic Rebuttal (which is the only card ever I've found in Gatherer that counters and copies the same spell) works because the spell mastery ability explicitly refers to "the spell countered this way" without targeting it. There is no double target choice, and that's exactly what generates this problem.
(2/3) Balance - In the options tree above (see Elegance), the mana costs in themselves look fine to me, especially when you consider the high flexibility of this card, that makes it easily playable in both limited and constructed. I can definitely see this in Standard, but I think the mana required to get a decent use out of this would keep this out of older formats. This card puts together two of the most unfun things in casual (counterspells and opponents using your own spells against you), but at least you have a way around it in theory.
Creativity
(2.5/3) Uniqueness - Escalate is new, in the sense that it's in the most recent real set, and the second mode especially is also new, but in the sense that it's never been done before. I wouldn't have said it beforehand, but I checked Gatherer and it looks like never before a copy effect has been coupled with an "unless they pay X" restriction. The other modes are nothing new though.
(2/3) Flavor - The name is very good and I'm amazed it isn't already used. It also makes complete sense with the mechanics. No room for flavor text, but I want to prize how good the name is.
Polish
(1.5/3) Quality - As I said in Uniqueness, escalate is new, and that means it should have had reminder text here. While sometimes it can be left out for space issues on some rares and mythic, even though that should be avoided anyway, I tried in MSE and it still fits here, so no reason not to include it (half a point deducted). The first two modes should be switched for the card to work as intended (see Viability, one point deducted here too for a functional mistake).
(2/2) Main Challenge - Good.
(2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
Total: 16/25
Design
(3/3) Appeal - Timmy likes how this affects the board, he would probably like the token to be bigger and would have no problem in paying more mana for it. Spike, at the contrary, likes exactly the fact that this costs the least amount of mana it could cost, and he's quite excited by this. Johnny could maybe use the escalate cost somehow, but I don't think this is a card for him. Timmies like it and Spikes love it.
(2/3) Elegance - Wordy but easily understandable.
Development
(2.5/3) Viability - Untapping its own creatures is a recent addition to green's color pie, as stated by Maro and visible in cards like Aim High, Burst of Strength, Colossal Heroics, Dragonscale Boon, Savage Surge, Spidery Grasp, Vines of the Recluse. That is an effect, though, not a cost. It also feels more appropriate as an effect rather than a cost, because it's actually beneficial to you, and it's strange to see a beneficial cost. It's still possible though, and there are cases where it's required for the card to work. This is not one of those cases, in the sense that the card would be perfectly functional with a different "real" cost, but admittedly it's still a quite convenient cost if you choose the last mode. Also, there is a hidden real cost in that you still need to have the creatures and have them tapped. Overall, let's just consider it a slight bend, but a quite interesting one indeed. Rarity is definitely appropriate.
(3/3) Balance - Very playable in limited, as its modes can respectively affect the board, break stalls, and be removal. I could see this in Standard too. The low cost might let this be at least considered in other older formats (Modern comes to mind), as a flash bear with additional upside it looks quite good. I see no particular problems in casual or multiplayer.
Creativity
(2/3) Uniqueness - Escalate is new, and it's not in green in Eldritch Moon, so that's even better. Nonmana escalate cost are already in EMN though. The single modes are also not particularly original.
(2/3) Flavor - The name is very good and makes a lot of sense with the mechanics, especially the escalate cost and the first mode. No room for flavor text, but here too I want to prize how good the name is.
Polish
(2.5/3) Quality - You used a long dash after escalate (and rightly so, and that makes me understand you can use non-Latin characters), so why not also after "choose one or more"? (Half a point deducted.)
(2/2) Main Challenge - Good.
(2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
Total: 21/25
Design
(2/3) Appeal - Timmy doesn't care. Johnny may use this for protecting or finding his combo. Spike is the one this card is for, and he likes it. The modes may be a little too restrictive for him to be fully excited, but that's necessary for balance, and he still likes it well enough.
(2.5/3) Elegance - A bit on the wordy side, but still easily understandable.
Development
(3/3) Viability - Everything is in color and rarity feels appropriate.
(2/3) Balance - Applying today's standards, a counterspell at UU needs to have restrictions. A double restriction feels good taking also into account the flexibility of a modal spell. The same reason justifies an increase of cost for Curfew to become the second mode and for the scry. Given all this, the mana cost looks fine. The escalate cost may look a bit low, as you can just choose the same mode again and again as long as you have mana to pay for it, but I don't think it's as low as to be broken. As for playability, one could play this in limited even though it's not a given. I see this more as a card for constructed, and control decks will like this. Finally, we have to acknowledge that this card uses mechanics that may not be that fun in casual.
Creativity
(2.5/3) Uniqueness - If the Confluences didn't already exist, this would have got full points here. As they do, it gets a close but not perfect score. As only a single cycle with that effect exists, it still feels fresh enough.
(1.5/3) Flavor - The name "Crescendo" makes sense with the "more than once" part of the rules text. The word "Academic" is perfectly in color for what it's clearly meant to be the blue part of a cycle, even though I can see the flavor of study only in the scry mode. No room for flavor text.
Polish
(3/3) Quality - All good.
(2/2) Main Challenge - Good.
(2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
Total: 20.5/25
Folza: 21
RaikouRider: 20.5
caliburdeath: 16
Out of competition
Judgment complete
Design
(2/3) Appeal - Timmy likes to return his dead creatures to his hand to recast them, but doesn't care that much about the other modes. Johnny can use this to dig into his library for combo pieces or return a creature that's part of a combo and that might have died. Spike likes the card advantage of the last two modes (the first is parity). I have a hard time understanding who exactly this card is meant to be for. Many players will at least have no problems with this, but I don't see anyone getting fully excited either.
(2/3) Elegance - The name makes you expect a copy effect that's not there. Except for that, the card is not wordy and very easily understandable.
Development
(1/3) Viability - I don't see any green in this card. Probably the second mode is meant to be the green one, but returning specifically creatures is actually black, green can still do that but only as part of a wider "return any card from your graveyard to your hand" effect. Here there are one blue mode (the first) and two black modes (the other two). Usually, when there are no rules problems (and here there aren't any), I attribute half points (1.5) for color pie and the other half for rarity. Rarity is missing, and I can't judge what's not there. As two out of three modes are in color, or if you prefer only two colors out of three are represented (the result is the same), I'll give two thirds of the color pie points, that makes one.
(2.5/3) Balance - I see no problem with this card. It's playable in limited provided that the environment supports playing three colors (Tarkir-like). I honestly can't see this card in constructed, it may make a splash in Standard because of the card advantage it can produce, but nothing huge, and certainly not in older formats. No problems in casual or multiplayer.
Creativity
(0.5/3) Uniqueness - We've already seen "choose two" in two cycles of Commands, and all modes are things we see in almost every set. The only new thing we have here is "choose two" on a permanent, but that's very weak here.
(0.5/3) Flavor - The name feels generic and makes me expect some copy effect in the rules text, which is not there. No flavor text.
Polish
(1/3) Quality - I'm judging the text card, as that's what officially counts in this contest. The render is a welcome bonus, but it does not give you additional points. With this premise, in the text card there are unnecessary line breaks and the name is not bolded. As usual, I'll deduct no points for such formatting issues, but I still mention them. That also includes the use of a minus sign instead of a long dash after "choose two", as you may be subject to the non-Latin characters antispam restriction, so I have to give you the benefit of the doubt. I'll also mention the order of mana symbols in the mana cost: before Tarkir, you would have got it right. In Tarkir, Sultai cards have BGU instead. It's not yet clear if that rearranging was only for Tarkir block, or if it's for all wedge cards going forward. As I just said it's not yet clear, no point deduction.
Now let's go to the things I am deducting points for. There's a typo in the first mode: "then" is missing an "n" (half a point deducted). Another one in the last mode: "discards" lacks the third person "s" (half a point deducted). Finally, there's been a little debate in the DCC lately about this, but I do insist that rarity is a fundamental part of a Magic card and must be included in any custom card, especially those meant for contests. I'm going to write an article about that sooner or later (by the way, I'm gathering ideas for a second series of The Lion's Lair, I already have a few ideas, but if anyone would like my own take on a specific topic just let me know). We even have a specific point in the rubric for it (it's explicitly included in Viability). This is a serious mistake, so as usual I'm deducting one whole point for missing rarity.
(2/2) Main Challenge - Good.
(1/2) Subchallenges - Two modes must be chosen, but it's not monocolored.
Total: 12.5/25
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.)
(2/3) Appeal: Looks like a Timmy card. Big effects. Pretty sure Spikes also see the value in this.
(3/3) Elegance: Having positive costs always reads weird, but this one reads really simple. It's crystal clear and makes a lot of sense.
Development -
(1.5/3) Viability: But having positive costs is just asking for trouble. People will wonder whether they can just pay the cost as often as they want.
It'll be confusing to new players. "How is that a cost? How can I pay by putting 1/1s on the board?" There's little gain in doing something out-of-the-box like this when
you can just make the escalate cost "pay 2 life" and add putting the two 1/1s as an option. In the end it will do things that are rather similar, but follow the more familiar templating.
Red is of course correct and complexity-wise it could be done on an uncommon, as higher rarities won't make things better.
(1.5/3) Balance: 5 haste power for 3 mana and buffing all your other creatures is a scary thing. This will cause lots of sudden lethal damage swings in limited. Damage isn't a good way to cost a card like this.
It'll almost always be used for that final alpha strike anyways. Might have a similar use in construced, but probably won't reach Overrun levels of kill potential. What I like is that it's not that bad to play early on either.
You get two 1/1s and swing for 5. That's cute.
Creativity -
(2.5/3) Uniqueness: Sunhome Guildmage ventures into similar territory, but yours ventures into interesting new territory for limited gameplay.
(2/3) Flavor: Love the name, but what's with that flavortext? Thunder? Burning? What?
Polish -
(1.5/3) Quality: When generating tokens first comes the p/t and then the color.
Choose one.
get +2/+0
(2/2) Main Challenge: Modes. Check.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both. Check.
Total: 18/25
(3/3) Appeal: Spike is thrilled. I believe Timmy was thought up just to pitch a card very much like this (Verdant Force).
(2/3) Elegance: It reads a bit odd with the payment option and then you still get something, even if you didn't pay. It's missing the elegance of Entwine.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: Tokens. Counters. You could do those at any color. Rare seems like a good fit. Nothing weird going on. Perfect.
(3/3) Balance: 4 mana 5/5 in green aren't that special anymore. Sometimes they don't even see that much play (Deadbridge Goliath) in Standard if I remember correctly.
Still, it's the kind of card development would decide on to be the green efficient powerhouse without pushing it too much. The upsides are neat, but don't overdo it.
Creativity -
(1/3) Uniqueness: Ventures in similiar design space as Pentavus, but isn't as exciting. It's simple, efficient, within known perimeters. Entwine on a creature. Nothing too unique.
(1/3) Flavor: Ooze seems like the perfect fit. Not sure about 'fluctuating' - I mean that changing part is already what makes it an ooze. Also it's not very fluctuating.
After entering the battlefield it's pretty much constant. Almost too constant for an Ooze. No flavortext is a shame.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: The templating for this one is tricky, but it looks good.
(2/2) Main Challenge: Yep.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Mono green and optional both.
Total: 20/25
(1/3) Appeal: It's not a combat trick. So there's little value for Spike. It's a one-trick pony, so Johnny doesn't want it either. It does effect three creatures, so it's a larger effect. Maybe Timmy would like this.
(1.5/3) Elegance: It's simple, but confusing that you can't target the same creature. It feels like that's what people would want to do with it. Why not let them have their will?
Also using the 'choose' template for something that's not really a choice seems pointless. I mean, you'll choose all any time, unless you are limited by the number of creatures you have - which really isn't a choice.
This could have also been templated with 'up to's and 'another'. I guess you get to choose which creature gets which effect and which effect you want to leave out.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: Uncommon seems fine for an effect like this that's a bit on the larger side. It's well within white. Neat.
(1/3) Balance: What does this card even want to do? You play it before attacks to make the blocks more awkward? It's just 2 extra damage. What's the sorcery-speed untapping for? When's that ever needed?
I guess it's a counter to Topplegeist. 2 mana isn't much, but I'd never play this over anything that could give me actual card advantage and not just a bit better attack.
Creativity -
(3/3) Uniqueness: The templating hasn't been done before. I like how it lets you choose different effects for different creatures, no matter the execution. The idea is great.
(0.5/3) Flavor: Sorcery-speed defense? Unified when everbody gets something else? I don't get it. Untapping and +0/+2 has a defense feeling to it, alright.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Templating like the Confluences. Looks good.
(2/2) Main Challenge: Modal.
(2/2) Subchallenges: White and multiple.
Total: 17/25
(2/3) Appeal: Looks like a Spike card at first glance. Lots of options. Getting more out of your card. Not sure if Timmy would want to weaken his creature for 'marginal' effects.
(2/3) Elegance: This has a LOT going on. The -1/-1 counters are appearing every time, it would have been better to concentrate that into one line. (Like etb put any number of -1/-1 counters on.. for each choose...)
Other than that it just simple effects, easy to process.
Development -
(2/3) Viability: Hasty tokens are red. +1/-1 is also still in red. Looting isn't. Red now discards first, then draws the cards. Rare seems appropriate, might have been enough for Mythic Rare.
(2.5/3) Balance: The first option makes for a 3/3 haste for 5 that doesn't die to blocks (as you retain the actualy body). with the third option it's a 4/2 that's swinging with a 2/2 that's staying back, which is also fine.
Optimizing your draw is fine. It's a neat toolbox, but could have probably been 5/5, as the effects aren't too strong.
Creativity -
(2.5/3) Uniqueness: There's been cards that put -1/-1 counters on themselves as part of a cost, but this is quite crazy. The one-time choice makes for interesting gameplay.
(2/3) Flavor: The Diminishing part is a good fit, but that's already got the changing nature of your card covered. I don't like the redundancy of the Flamechanger. Also sounds like he's changing flames.
Is he? Why is the token a Mutant? The flavortext is neat.
Polish -
(2.5/3) Quality: Choose up to three would have been a better template than choose any number.
(2/2) Main Challenge: Rather modal.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both met.
Total: 19.5/25
Flatline 20
theazurespirit 17
void_nothing 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
(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
Card:
Reaper's Command BBB
Sorcery (R)
Choose two --
Destroy target creature.
Search your library for a card and put it into your graveyard, then shuffle your library.
Each opponent loses 3 life.
Target opponent reveals his or her hand. Choose a card from it. That player discards that card.
DESIGN
(3/3) Appeal: This card doesn't appeal to Timmies, but it's not supposed to. Rather, it appeals fantastically to both Spikes and Johnnys.
(3/3) Elegance: This card is the pinnacle of elegance in such a way that, at first glance, you can completely understand and evaluate the card. Well done.
DEVELOPMENT
(3/3) Viability: This card makes total sense where it is, and holds a good spot on the color wheel and CR.
(0.5/3) Balance: This seems like two undercosted modes next to two overcosted modes. Unless you need to use an Entomb esque combo, you're pretty much always getting a Thoughtseize and Murder for 3 mana. That's a little bit broken and would completely change formats, especially Standard and Modern, which usually means the card is too powerful to see print.
CREATIVITY
(1.5/3) Uniqueness: Everything about this card is borrowed, from the second to the very last word. The Command cycle was an original concept the first time around, but after two cycles, it's a tiny bit old.
(2/3) Flavor: There is a surprising amount of flavor, as we see four ways the Reaper can, well, reap. However, it's just kind of par for the course in all actuality.
POLISH
(1.5/3) Quality: There's two template errors with the last mode. It should read "You choose a nonland card from it"
(2/2) Main: The Challenge is met.
(2/2) Sub: It's monocolored, it's dual-modal, so you get 2 points.
TOTAL: 18.5/25
Harness the Might 2GGG
Sorcery (R)
Choose one —
DESIGN
(3/3) Appeal: Well, I'll be damned, this appeals pretty well to everyone. Good Job.
(3/3) Elegance: This is just about as elegant as they come. It all makes sense and coherently comes together into something great.
DEV.
(3/3) Viability: This doesn't break or bend anything as far a I know. It fits where it needs to and does so well.
(1/3) Balance: So, this is way too easily an Overrun, and often will be even better, then it also works as a pretty damn good creature tutor. That much versatility on one card is pretty busted.
CREATIVE:
(.5/3) Uniqueness: The most unique part of the card is the greatest power clause, and even that's not too unique. This just looks like a kind of boring mix of Tooth and Nail and Overrun.
(2/3) Flavor: This card doesn't have much flavor that's anything more than par for the course, but it's fine.
POLISH
(3/3) Quality: Everything looks good!
(2/2) Main: It works for the challenge.
(2/2) Sub: Monocolored dual choice, so you get 2 points.
TOTAL: 17.5/25
Malicious Contract2BBBB
Sorcery (M)
Choose one or more -
(2/3) Appeal: This card has its appeal toward Johnnies, and, to a lesser extent, Tims, but fails to do anything toward Spikes. It also only appeals minutely to Johnnies, at that.
(3/3) Elegance: All of the modes are cohesive, make sense, and are easy to comprehend. Good job.
DEV.
(3/3) Viability: All of these modes are rooted in black and the rules, so you're all good.
(1.5/3) Balance: I'm giving this a lower score because it just seems too bad to be played. Maybe 5 mana is right for it, but Triple black is too much. It won't do really anything, as the only time when you'd want to use the first mode is in some Laboratory Maniac deck, where it's counter-intuitive, the second in some weird demon tribal deck (in which case you already have better options), and the third against combo decks, in which the cost is too high. The card just isn't good in really any sense.
CREATE
(1/3) Uniqueness: Look at these borrowed effects! That said, they have a unique twist, but one that's not any good.
(2.5/3) Flavor: This seems to be a contract with a demon(s) that costs more than it's really worth. However, it doesn't really delve into it much further than that. Could have gone for some flavor text.
POLISH
(3/3) Quality: Seems we took out all of the bad quality submissions in Round 1.
(2/2) Main: Challenge Get!
(2/2) Sub: It's monocolored, It's dual-moded, it's TWO POINTS!
TOTAL: 20/25
Entreat the River God 5UU
Instant (M)
Escalate U
Choose one or more -
(2/3) Appeal: It appeals to Timmies, which is something blue doesn't typically get to do, but it's not good at appealing to anything else.
(2.5/3) Elegance: I had to read the second ability two or three times before truly grasping it, but otherwise it's perfect.
DEV.
(3/3) Viability: This is all within the rules' and blue's grasp of the game. No problems here.
(.5/3) Balance: You see, when a modal spell is created, all modes should be worth around the same, some 1 or two mana more or less. But when you have an ability that's worth 7 mana and an ability that's worth 2 mana at most, that creates some balance problems. It also runs into the problem of effectively not being a modal spell, since you always just want a 5/5 flying hexproof creature at instant speed.
CREATE
(2.5/3) Uniqueness: The middle mode is a been there, done that, sort of deal, but the rest of the card is really fresh and unique.
(2/3) Flavor: I can see the flavor here, I just can't make much sense out of it. Is the dragon the water god? or a scion of it? I is confuse.
POLISH
(2.5/3) Quality: "and" can and should be replaced with a comma in most cases. Pass it on.
(2/2) Main: IT IS MET!
(2/2) Sub: IT IS MET!
TOTAL: 19.5/25
1. Mederer - 20/25
2. Glurman - 19.5/25
3. Voxzorz -19/25
4. BrainPo - 18.5/25
EDIT: I did miscount glurman's total, bringing him to a tie with Voxzorz. Both cards had huge balancing issues, and that's quite important. However, glurman's card was a bit more balanced, and didn't have fundamental balancing issues that couldn't be solved with a small increase in cost, so I have slightly adjusted the scores to give glurman the edge. Sorry about that.
Check out my Newborder Peasant Cube here! http://www.cubetutor.com/draft/37467
True Name Mafia (Win),Clan Contest IX Mafia (Win), Bravely Default Mafia (Loss), BOTAS (loss), BfV (Loss), Ace Attourney (loss)
Rules Advisor before they were eradicated