Elite HieromancerWW
Creature - Human Cleric (rare)
As Elite Hieromancer enters the battlefield, name a creature card that isn't Elite Hieromancer.
Creatures with the chosen name can't attack or block, and loses all abilities. "You are only free when I say so."
2/2
Wideweb Spider1GG
Creature - Spider (U)
Reach 1GG: Prevent all damage that would be dealt by flying creatures and creatures blocked by Wideweb Spider this turn.
"And the swampfolk think they know what futility looks like." - Iya, Faerie Vanguard
2/3
Learn From Your Enemies1UU
Sorcery (R)
Draw a card for each land target opponent controls, then discard a card for each land you control. If your rival goes well, don't envy. Try to find why.
Vedalken Polymorpher1UU
Creature - Vedalken Wizard (Rare) 1U, t: Another target creature loses all abilities and becomes a green Frog with base power and toughness 1/1 until end of turn. 2UU, t: Another target creature loses all abilities and becomes a green Lizard with base power and toughness 5/5 until end of turn.
2/2
Infernal RetrievalBBB
Sorcery (R)
Choose one -
• Put target creature card from a graveyard onto the battlefield under your control. You lose life equal to that card's converted mana cost.
• Search your library for a card, reveal it, and put it into your hand, then shuffle your libary. You lose life equal to that card's converted mana cost. "Do you suppose what you want or what you need is more expensive?" - Kiv-Xanos, Rakdos summoner
Bestial Onslaught1GGG
Instant (R)
Choose one. If you control a creature with power 5 or greater, you may choose two instead. If you control a creature with power 10 or greater, you may choose three instead.
Put a 3/3 green Beast creature token onto the battlefield.
Creatures you control get +2/+2 until end of turn.
Creatures you control gain haste and trample until end of turn.
Lethal Provocateur2RR
Creature-Devil (U)
First strike
When Lethal Provocateur enters the battlefield, target creature must attack you during it's controller's next turn, if able. Sharp claws and sharp wit, all wrapped up in an infuriating package. 3/1
Spectacular Illusionist1UU
Creature - Human Wizard (R)
When Spectacular Illusionist enters the battlefield, choose a creature card in a graveyard. Create a token that is a copy of that creature except it has base power and toughness 1/1 and it's an Illusion in addition to its other types. "They're illusions, Michael!"
- Gobar Bluth, to Michael the Incredulous
2/2
Edit: Um. This one's the creature challenge. Option A.
Design (2/3) Appeal - Timmy would like to copy his dead big creatures, but if he does they're not that big anymore, and this is a letdown to him. Johnny absolutely loooves this! There is so much he can do with this! Spike is not that interested unless Johnny discovers some powerful combos. (1.5/3) Elegance - A bit wordy and complex to use, as you have to remember which card this is copying while that card is still in the graveyard (if it were exiled you could just put it under this card) and you also have to remember the overwritten stats. Still, on a surface level, it's easy enough to understand.
Development (3/3) Viability - Everything is in color and rarity feels appropriate. (2/3) Balance - This is similar to Quicksilver Gargantuan, but it has a key difference: 1/1 vs 7/7. There is also the graveyard vs battlefield difference, but it doesn't have as many consequences. You want to use the Gargantuan in limited because as a 7/7 it's huge: you can copy a little creature with useful abilites and have it grow big. Here it's the opposite: if you copy a creature you're shrinking it down to a 1/1 no matter what base power and toughness it might have, and that's not what you want in limited. At least you get a 2/2 body in addition to the token, but most of the time you'll play this in limited as though it were a 2/2 that comes with a random 1/1 token. Don't misunderstand me: three power over two different bodies for three mana is very playable in limited, but what I'm saying is that the copy aspect won't matter there most of the time. All of this is also true for constructed, but with an important difference: you could copy creatures with relevant abilities and/or part of a combo where the power and toughness do not matter. Not that they don't matter in constructed, but in limited they just matter much more. In multiplayer, this has to potential to get better as there will be multiple graveyards to choose cards to copy from.
Creativity (1.5/3) Uniqueness - As I read this card, Body Double immediately jumped to my mind. This is a new twist on it, with creating a 1/1 token instead of having a Clone, but nothing more. (3/3) Flavor - The name is fine and the flavor text is good too. I like the emphasis touch on the word "illusions". The flavor text also makes me curious to know more about the two characters, especially Micheal, and that's a very good place to be in flavor: teasing the readers and making they want to know more. You don't want to do it on every card but done in small doses it's a great way to make people want to know the story.
Polish (2.5/3) Quality - In the attribution, there should be no space between the dash (that should be long but you may be a victim of the antispam non-Latin characters restriction) and the name of the character (-0.5). (2/2) Main Challenge - Good. (2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
Total: 19.5/25
The potential for memory issues and the low originality almost costed you elimination, but in the end others did more mistakes and you're basically advancing just because of that. You got lucky but more work expects you next round. See you then!
Wideweb Spider1GG
Creature - Spider (U)
Reach 1GG: Prevent all damage that would be dealt by flying creatures and creatures blocked by Wideweb Spider this turn.
"And the swampfolk think they know what futility looks like." - Iya, Faerie Vanguard
2/3
Design (2/3) Appeal - Timmy likes this as it lets him deal damage with his own big fliers without worrying about them dying in combat. Johnny could think of using this for protection but this card doesn't appeal that much to him. Spike likes a pseudo-recurrent Fog, but I don't see him getting fully excited by this card. (3/3) Elegance - As short as it can be and easily understandable.
Development (2.5/3) Viability - Everything is in color, and I am amazed that such a green card hasn't been printed yet. Damage prevention is one of the many areas where green and white overlap, but making it specific for fliers feels really green. Coupling that with creatures blocked by this is also very interesting. As for rarity, this reads fine as an uncommon at first, but the prevention ability being repeatable makes me wonder if this should be rare. Hard to say without playtest. (2/3) Balance - In limited, this would already be playable without the damage prevention ability. In all constructed formats, I think this would at most be a sideboard card against decks with lots of fliers. I expect better options for your maindeck three-mana slots to be there. No particular problems in casual or multiplayer.
Creativity (3/3) Uniqueness - Much to my surprise, I checked Gatherer and I discovered that damage prevention from fliers specifically has been done only three times before, on very old cards that are all either white or artifacts. Those cards are Al-Abara's Carpet, Scarecrow, and Songstitcher. It's never been done in green even though such effect feels really at home there. Coupling that with the second half of that ability makes this card feel even better in this regard. (2.5/3) Flavor - The name and flavor text are good enough. The flavor of a spider with reach has been a little overdone though by now. Designer: "I have a creature with reach. What could it possibly be?"
Creative: "Why are you even asking? It's a spider!"
Polish (0/3) Quality - "flying creatures" should be "creatures with flying" (-1 as this is a very well known fact). The flavor text should be in italics (again -1 for the same reason) and with the attribution on a separate line (-0.5). Also in the attribution, there should be no space between the dash (that should be long but you may be a victim of the antispam non-Latin characters restriction) and the name of the character (-0.5). (2/2) Main Challenge - Good. (2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
Total: 19/25
I really liked your card and it has no major issues, but unfortunately what decided your elimination was the high quantity of Quality mistakes (pun partly intended). Even just remembering to put the flavor text in italics would have been enough to advance. I'm sorry. I hope you had fun anyway and I expect to see you again next month. Prepare your best Kaladesh-inspired designs!
Firespray Dragon2RR
Creature - Dragon R
Flying
Whenever Firespray Dragon deals combat damage to a player, you may choose one —
Firespray Dragon deals 2 damage divided as you choose among one or two target creatures defending player controls.
Destroy target artifact defending player controls.
3/4
Design (2/3) Appeal - Timmy likes this even though he would have like this to be a bit bigger. Spike, at the contrary, likes this more as is. He just sees this card as a 3/4 flier that deals two more damage when it connects. Not much for Johnny here. (2.5/3) Elegance - A bit on the wordy side, but very easy to understand.
Development (3/3) Viability - Everything is in color and rarity feels appropriate. (2.5/3) Balance - This may be too small to be a "bomb" in the usual sense in limited, but it's still very good there and you'll always play it in your red limited decks. An evasive creature that deals with opposing 1- or 2-toughness creatures looks great in limited. It could see some Standard play too, even though I'm not 100% sure. I still wouldn't be surprised to see this as the top of the curve of a Standard monored deck. In older formats, I can see this being a sideboard card against artifact decks at best. No problem in casual or multiplayer.
Creativity (1/3) Uniqueness - Nothing in this card is particularly unique, it's just that this exact combination of effects has never been done before. Each single effect is something we see in every set. (1/3) Flavor - The name makes sense with the abilities except maybe the last mode. The flavor also feels a bit generic to me. Most dragons spit fire. Up to a couple lines of flavor text could have fit according to MSE.
Polish (2.5/3) Quality - The correct use of the long dash makes me understand you're not a victim of the antispam non-Latin character restriction, so you could (and should) have used bullet points instead of the list tag to avoid the unnecessary line break between rules text and P/T (-0.5). It's a known behavior of the list tag that it leaves a blank line underneath it. (2/2) Main Challenge - Good. (2/2) Subchallenges - Both met. You even did a modal ability even though it was the other option's subchallenge. I can't give you one more point for it though.
Total: 18.5/25
What caused your elimination is essentially the Creativity section: a too generic flavor with too common effects. Making slightly better in either one of those things would have been enough for you to advance, but together they knocked you out. I'm sorry, especially because I personally like your card anyway, but that's what happened. I hope you had fun anyway and I expect to see you again next month. Prepare your best Kaladesh-inspired designs!
Expelled LegionaryW
Creature - Human Soldier (c)
Unleash (You may have this creature enter the battlefield with a +1/+1 counter on it. It can’t block as long as it has a +1/+1 counter on it.)
As long as Expelled Legionary has a +1/+1 counter on it it has lifelink, otherwise it has first strike.
1/1
Design (2/3) Appeal - Too small for Timmy to care. Not much for Johnny here. Spike loves this as a 2/2 lifelink for one mana that can't block. (3/3) Elegance - Short and easy to understand.
Development (2/3) Viability - Everything but unleash is in color. Unleash has never been in white. The +1/+1 counter is no problem, white makes plenty of those, but it doesn't really get "can't block". I honestly have a hard time seeing that phrase on a white card. If we admit unleash in white, I can actually see this at common. The potential memory issues are prevented by the counter acting as a marker. Commons are definitely the hardest cards to design, and you did a good job. (2.5/3) Balance - This is certainly limited playable. Some particular decks, like white weenie or hyper aggro, might also want this card in constructed, but this isn't a card that any white deck will want for Standard. I see no problem in casual and multiplayer.
Creativity (3/3) Uniqueness - Unleash in white is definitely unique. (1/3) Flavor - I think the legion this character has been expelled from is the Rakdos guild. As a Rakdos outcast, he gets to keep a Rakdos mechanic but in a color outside of Rakdos. If you see it this way, the flavor works, but then why the Soldier creature type? I don't remember the Rakdos having soldiers, maybe this character recycled himself as a soldier after getting exiled from the Rakdos? This looks to me as a wonderful occasion to explain all this with flavor text, but here there is none! Up to three lines fit according to MSE.
Polish (1.5/3) Quality - In the last ability, the comma should be a full stop (-0.5) and two commas are missing (in between "it it" and after "otherwise", two times -0.5 = -1). The wording should have been:
As long as Expelled Legionary has a +1/+1 counter on it, it has lifelink. Otherwise, it has first strike. (2/2) Main Challenge - Good. (1/2) Subchallenges - Costs less than four, but has no activated or triggered abilities. All abilities on this card are static.
Total: 18/25
Using unleash in white has been a double-edged sword: it boosted your Uniqueness score but it has some problems with the color pie. In the end, the latter side prevailed unfortunately for you, also because of your choice to ignore one of the subchallenges. I still don't know whether it was intentional or you thought that one of the abilities (maybe the last?) was triggered rather than static. Remember: a triggered ability always starts with "when", "whenever", or "at". Abilities starting with "as" are actually static. I'm sorry. I hope you had fun anyway and I expect to see you again next month. Prepare your best Kaladesh-inspired designs!
Dismantler of Fates2U
Creature - Merfolk Wizard (R)
Godspeed 4UU(You may cast this card anytime you could cast an instant for its Godspeed cost.)
When you cast Dismantler of Fates for its Godspeed cost, you may counter target spell.
When Dismantler of Fates enters the battlefield, draw a card. One thread cut, another thread born.
1/3
Design (2/3) Appeal - Timmy doesn't care. Johnny might use this for protecting and find his combo. Spike is clearly the one this card is meant for, and he really likes to counter a spell while also getting a 1/3 and a card out of the exchange, but having to pay six mana to do so turns him down a little. (2.5/3) Elegance - Wordy, but still easy to understand.
Development (3/3) Viability - Everything is in color and rarity is definitely right. I wouldn't want to see this at any rarity less than rare. (2/3) Balance - A 1/3 cantrip for three mana would probably be limited playable by itself, but it's certainly not what you're looking for in a rare. So the value has to come from godspeed, and in limited this card delivers. Being able to counter your opponent's bomb or removal spell while also getting a 1/3 and a card looks very appealing in limited. Six mana is a lot to pay in constructed though. I can't remember any counterspell played in Standard that costs more than four mana, maybe in some rare case five mana, but definitely not six mana. I see no problems in casual or multiplayer.
Creativity (1/3) Uniqueness - Godspeed, which is the only original thing we have here, is literally just the Rout cycle keyworded. The only thing that changes is that the additional amount to pay is now variable. It's not that big of a difference. (3/3) Flavor - The name is good and it fits very nicely with a counterspell on a stick. The flavor text is very nice too: one thread cut (the countered spell) and another one born (the drawn card).
Polish (2/3) Quality - As a keyword, "godspeed" should not be capitalized when it's not at the beginning of the line, for this card that means in the reminder text and in the first triggered ability (two times -0.5 = -1). (2/2) Main Challenge - Good. (2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
Total: 19.5/25
The similarity to the Rout cycle and the wrong capitalization almost costed you elimination, but in the end others did more mistakes and you're basically advancing just because of that. You got lucky but more work expects you next round. See you then!
Learn From Your Enemies1UU
Sorcery (R)
Draw a card for each land target opponent controls, then discard a card for each land you control. If your rival goes well, don't envy. Try to find why.
Design (2.5/3) Appeal - Timmy doesn't care. Johnny can dig into his library to look for combo pieces. Spike really likes the card advantage this card gives him if he's behind in lands. He will never refuse drawing cards, but that's when he needs it the most. (3/3) Elegance - Short and very easily understandable. The wonderful flavor helps too. This card really makes sense as a whole.
Development (3/3) Viability - Looting is blue and this is essentially a variant on that, so no problems with the color pie. Rarity feels right as this can potentially generate huge amounts of card advantage. (2.5/3) Balance - For limited, this card immediately reminded me of the Quadrant Theory by Marshall Sutcliff (if you don't know what it is I think googling "mtg quadrant theory" or something like that is enough). Remember when he said that the most valuable quadrant is "behind" and the most valuable cards (at least in limited) are those that can help you in that situation? Well, I think that is exactly the strength of this card. If you're behind, you probably have less lands than your opponents, especially if you're mana screwed, and as long as you have three mana available this generates the card advantage you need to help you get back on track. If you're ahead on lands than this is card disadvantage, but then you can just not play it unless you badly need some card selection (say you have all lands left in your hand when you have enough on the battlefield already). A similar reasoning could maybe apply to Standard. I can't see this in older formats. Being "target" opponent helps this card being balanced in multiplayer, I don't even want to imagine what that being "each opponent" would imply and how much card advantage you would get out of this...
Creativity (1.5/3) Uniqueness - A nice new twist on the looting effect, but nothing to write home about as far as originality goes. (3/3) Flavor - I absolutely love the flavor of this card, I think it's definitely the best of all cards in my bracket and maybe more. The name and flavor text are wonderful and I could very easily see both of them as is on a real card. I also like very much how well they reflect the mechanics.
Polish (2.5/3) Quality - "from" is a preposition so it should not be capitalized in the card name unless it's at the beginning of the line, which is not here (-0.5). (2/2) Main Challenge - Good. (1/2) Subchallenges - Costs less than four but is not a modal spell.
Total: 21/25
Making a short and elegant card with a wonderful flavor that also is mechanically relevant proved a good choice, as it often does. Good job! See you next round!
Sea-Rat Smugler2B
Creature - Human Pirate(C)
Whenever Sea-Rat Smugler enters the battlefield, you draw a card and you lose 1 life.
1/2
Design (1.5/3) Appeal - Timmy doesn't care. Johnny can dig into his library to look for combo pieces, but there should be better ways to do that. Spike likes the value this kind of cards can give him by replacing themselves, but he will play Phyrexian Rager over this all life long. (3/3) Elegance - Perfect in this regard.
Development (3/3) Viability - Everything is in color and rarity feels appropriate. Notice that the Rager is common, so a strictly worse version of it can certainly be too. "Strictly worse" in this contest is defined as worse in the vast majority of cases. Corner cases existing don't invalidate that. (1/3) Balance - Again, this is a strictly worse Phyrexian Rager, so if the Rager didn't broke any format and only saw limited play as far as I know, this would too. I actually see this as an underpowered card. The good part of that is that you're not breaking the game. The bad part is that, well... it's underpowered. No problem in casual or multiplayer.
Creativity (0/3) Uniqueness - We see this effect literally in every set. For example, Live Fast has just been spoiled for Kaladesh. Also, Phyrexian Rager is already a card and the only things that are different here are the creature type and the power. It doesn't help that this one is the worst between the two. (1.5/3) Flavor - I personally feel pirates are way overvalued in flavor, but that is just my own personal thought. The flavor of a pirate stealing a treasure (the card) for you at a price (1 life) works very well anyway. The name is fine for that flavor. Too bad there is no flavor text even though there is plenty of room for it.
Polish (3/3) Quality - A missing space between the subtypes and rarity, but I don't feel that's enough to deduct points, especially because on a real card they're not attached anyway (they have different alignment instead). (2/2) Main Challenge - Good. (2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
Total: 17/25
Making a strictly worse Phyrexian Rager might not have been the best idea after all. I'm sorry. I hope you had fun anyway and I expect to see you again next month. Prepare your best Kaladesh-inspired designs!
Bestial Onslaught1GGG
Instant (R)
Choose one. If you control a creature with power 5 or greater, you may choose two instead. If you control a creature with power 10 or greater, you may choose three instead.
Put a 3/3 green Beast creature token onto the battlefield.
Creatures you control get +2/+2 until end of turn.
Creatures you control gain haste and trample until end of turn.
Design (2.5/3) Appeal - Timmy likes very much being rewarded for controlling large creatures by putting even more creatures onto the battlefield and pumping all of them. To Spike, the check on power is mostly winmore, but he likes the versatility of a modal spell and the remote potential of creating a 5/5 trample haste for just four mana at instant speed. He has to control a creature with power 10+ to do so however and that looks way too restricting to him. Johnny could maybe use the haste but I can't see much for him here. (2/3) Elegance - Very wordy but also very easily understandable.
Development (3/3) Viability - Everything is in color and rarity feels appropriate. (3/3) Balance - The four-mana 5/5 flash trample haste scenario looks difficult enough to achieve so that's fine. This card looks playable in limited, especially if you are heavy green (the triple colored cost is no joke) and you have enough big creatures in your deck to be able to choose two modes reliably. In constructed the versatility of this card is key and I think this could see Standard play. In casual and multiplayer, this could get even better as you have more time to get out big creatures to choose more modes.
Creativity (1/3) Uniqueness - The mode are all things we see in every set. The original thing here was probably meant to be the "if you control a creature with power 5+… power 10+" part, but unfortunately Mayael's Aria is a card and I didn't even have to search Gatherer to remember it. I did check Gatherer but just for confirmation and searching directly for the card's name as I remembered it quite well. This won't feel that original to anyone who played in Alara. Though, there are still many players today that weren't yet playing at the time, and this card may feel original to them. (2/3) Flavor - The name is very good. If Bestial Menace exists, I can't see why not this. No flavor text, but MSE confirms me there is actually not room for it, so it's not a big problem.
Polish (3/3) Quality - All good. Accepting the "put a token onto the battlefield" vs "create" as we're still in the transition period. Just remember that starting next month you will have to use "create". (2/2) Main Challenge - Good. (2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
Total: 20.5/25
Your card is long and wordy, and that hurts. It is also nicely balanced and still clean enough anyway, and that helps. In the end, the good side prevailed, luckily for you. Still, remember to try to always use the shortest wording possible. Also, piggybacking is a powerful force, but hurts originality. Changing the numbers from Mayael's Aria would have already helped. Anyway, you still did a good enough job to advance. See you next 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.)
Mad CultistR
Creature - Human Shaman (C) T: Add R to your mana pool. You may only spend this mana on spells you cast from exile. True power lies in the forbidden spaces beyond the reach of our normal senses.
1/1
Design - (1.5/3) Appeal: A card like this has an exciting idea, especially for Johnny since it is a niche card. Timmy enjoys anything that ramps, although this ramp is very specific. This specificity is also a problem for Spike, especially since there are not that many impulsive draw cards that could actually use this card's mana as far as I know. (3/3) Elegance: Elegant enough to cast from exile!
Development - (2/3) Viability: However, I am not sure if this would see print at common, although it could perhaps see print at uncommon. Official Magic: The Gathering cards have made a conscious shift away from creatures that add mana to your mana pool for only 1 CMC, as it homogenizes the pool of cards similarly to Lightning Strike and Doom Blade. A nice and easy fix would be to make this card a 2/1 for 1R, however. Nonetheless, this is still the sort of card that I would like to see printed someday whenever there are enough cards in the card pool that are similar to Act on Impulse.
As a note, mana acceleration is both red and green, yet red primarily does it in the form of sorceries or instants while green primarily taps permanents for its mana. So, there is a bit of a color bleed here in an odd and unusual way. (1.5/3) Balance: Depending on however many cards in a limited format that can impulsively draw cards that there are, this card would either be a limited all-star or a limited last pick. Everywhere else, I do not picture this card doing enough in order to break anything in particular as of yet. It is just not very good in constructed formats as of right now, but would be just fine in casual or multiplayer.
Creativity - (3/3) Uniqueness: "Spend this mana only to cast spells from exile." is a very unique line of rules text that has never seen print before on any official Magic: The Gathering card. Well done! (2/3) Flavor: "Mad Cultist" is a very generic name, and honestly reads more like a black card in some respects. (I am surprised that it is actually an unused name, as a matter of fact.)
The flavor text honestly reads as though it should be a quotation spoken by the actual person that is being depicted with the card.
As a Vorthos player, I cannot say that I am really pleased, but at least the rules text of the card are succinctly flavorful.
Polish - (1.5/3) Quality: The second sentence of rules text should read "Spend this mana only to cast spells from exile." (minus one and a half points due to a necessary rewrite of a sentence of rules text). (2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge met! (2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges met!
Total: 18.5/25
Final thoughts: They have gone mad! Absolutely mad!
Wild Sparkspitter2R
Creature - Elemental (U) T: Wild Sparkspitter deals 1 damage to target creature. q: Wild Sparkspitter deals 1 damage to you. "It's even a little too wild for me." -Chandra Nalaar
1/3
Design - (1.5/3) Appeal: This is definitely a Johnny card that encourages you to accrue enough life to best use this card to its full potential, especially since it can untap itself for some sort of engine. Spike would definitely like to use this card since it can remove anything that can be pinged over and over, especially since life is a resource for her. Timmy is unexcited by this card. (2/3) Elegance: The untap symbol is inherently inelegant, and the continuous tapping and untapping would get a little repetitive to use which would also be an elegance problem.
Development - (1/3) Viability: I am doubting as to whether or not this card fits only onto red on the color wheel mechanically. The second ability basically reads "Pay 1 life: Untap Wild Sparkspitter" which is black. The untap symbol is unnecessary as a result, and Wizards of the Coast themselves alongside that the untap symbol is a design failure. If anything, this card could be multicolored as red and black. This card also perhaps should be rare instead of uncommon due to its complexity and ability to remove anything that can be pinged with enough life. (0.5/3) Balance: There are a couple cards that I would like to compare this card with, balance-wise, even if they are both outside of Standard: Gut Shot and Crackleburr. The former card tells us that 2 life and a card is worth about 1 damage. R gets Shock by default, however, so it is easy to say that Gut Shot by itself is a little weak, but not weak enough to allow precedent for this card in my opinion, even if it can only target creatures (and thank goodness for that at least).
The latter card tells us that this card cannot be strong on its own, yet synergy with other cards would make this more interesting as a card. Essentially, this card cannot be this repeatable for a cost that is so minimal. It could even be a tap/untap engine after it has been played, allowing one to pay 20 life to convoke for 20 or something else equally absurd, and I am certain that I am only hinting at the surface of the possible combos here. All official untap cards also come with an attached mana cost as a result of this, while this card has no mana cost attached to it, only a minimal amount of life payment.
This card is also oppressive because it can also just kill the majority of possible creatures on the board with enough life if left alive, especially only a few turns into the game.
There is no non-eternal format that I do not see this card making less enjoyable, unfortunately.
Creativity - (1.5/3) Uniqueness: Red has plenty of pingers, but repeatable pingers that deal damage to the controller are at least a little more unique. (2.5/3) Flavor: I am not a Chandra expert, but I do not picture a mono-red planeswalker saying that anything is too wild for them. However, card is indeed very wild, spitting sparks everywhere and all of that.
Polish - (2/3) Quality: The name of the person speaking the quotation requires it's own line in the flavor text (minus half a point). This card also needs reminder text since it uses the untap symbol (minus half a point). (Q is the untap symbol.)
In addition, the dash right next to the name of person being credited with the quotation should be a long dash '—' and not a short dash. (2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge met! (2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges met!
Total: 15/25
Final thoughts: This judgment was a difficult one to write, as I did not want to be harsh, but this card is of the sort that really needs to go back to the drawing board. My apologies.
Baloth Yearling (Common) 2G
Creature - Beast
2/2
Ravenous 2 (When this enters the battlefield, you may exile a creature card from your graveyard. If you do, put two +1/+1 counters on this.) "Young baloths can eat double their weight every day. Now that I think about it, so can old baloths." - Gergwyn, Small Game Hunter
Design - (0.5/3) Appeal: Despite this looking like it should be a Timmy card, it is a little too small for Timmy, and even if it gets bigger, it actually would still be a little too small for him. Johnny does not need this card for his machinations. Spike does not need this card for her gameplay, either, as it is basically an on-curve vanilla creature currently. (2.5/3) Elegance: The improper textual template that has been used here detracts from this card's elegance score. If this were actually printed, I feel as though the text would sort of be all over the place in an unfamiliar way. Ravenous itself does not seem to be inelegant design.
Development - (2.5/3) Viability: This card definitely goes with the grain of New World Order, and hence can exist at common. Exiling cards from graveyards can be done at green, but it would typically done in all other colors first, so it is not quite a perfect fit onto the color wheel. +1/+1 counters are definitely green, however. If I read this card without seeing any colors, I would probably try and put it into black on the color wheel first, and then green afterwards. (3/3) Balance: A 4/4 for 2G is rather strong, yet that actually feeds into the primary strength of green, its creatures. Besides, Leatherback Baloth was a perfectly fine card. If this card whiffs, it is only a 2/2 for 2G, which is almost unplayable anyway. It is a little bit rough, although certainly not unusual, to have a creature in your graveyard by turn 3 as well.
Basically, this card is fine in all formats, casual, and multiplayer.
Creativity - (1/3) Uniqueness: Admittedly, ravenous is a custom keyword, but awarding full uniqueness points for that alone just seems at least a little bit silly. As it stands, this custom keyword reads a little bit like an inverse of scavenge mixed with devour. Cards that exile cards from graveyards as a cost has been done aplenty as well. (2/3) Flavor: I like the name, but the flavor text is a little wordy for my liking as a Vorthos. Nonetheless, this new keyword does play somewhat nicely with the intent of this card's flavor.
Polish - (0/3) Quality: This card has its templating all wrong, unfortunately, even as a text card. The rarity should be next to the card's types, the mana cost should be next to the name, and the power/toughness should be below the rules text and the flavor text rather than above (minus one and a half points). The name of the person credited with saying the quotation requires it's own line in the flavor text (minus half a point). There should also be no space between the dash and the person's name (minus half a point). Furthermore, reminder text for this new ravenous keyword is not correct; the word "creature" should come immediately after both instances of 'this' (minus half a point).
As a final note, the dash right next to the name of person being credited with the quotation should be a long dash '—' and not a short dash. (2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge met! (2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges met!
Total: 15.5/25
Final thought(s): Do not be discouraged! Ravenous looks like it is a keyword that has some sort of promise in the right sort of set, surely. I cannot wait to see more instances of it in your cards.
Search for Evidence(2/U)(2/U)
Instant (U)
Choose one at random --
Draw two cards.
Investigate four times.
Sometimes it's hard to find the answer right away.
Design - (2/3) Appeal: Tammy is basically uninterested in this card. Jenny loves unique cards like this full of intrigue. This card is pushed enough so that Spike would also definitely like it enough as well, even if the word 'random' is one of her least favorite words. (2.5/3) Elegance: Random effects by their very nature are inelegant design, so unfortunately I am unable to award this card with full elegance points despite the fact that it has only ten words of actual rules text.
Development - (2/3) Viability: This card looks very much like it should be blue, but the word 'random' is not blue at all. That word belongs primarily in red and secondarily in black. Neither of those aforementioned colors use investigate, however. The easiest way to re-balance this card would be to start by removing the word 'random'.
Twobrid mana is also rather weird to viably develop, yet I suppose this sort of card concept could effectively work at uncommon due to a lack of rules text. (0/3) Balance: The problem with this card, balance-wise, is that Weave Fate is overpowered for only UU. Making this card an instant instead of a sorcery like Divination is a big balance problem, especially since both effects are equally playable. The fact that this card is random does not do enough to ensure this card's balance. I would cost this card at about 3U tentatively, but even then this is a weird card to try and balance properly.
Notably, investigating four times might actually be the stronger effect of the pair, since the clue tokens themselves could be used for shenanigans aplenty.
Creativity - (2/3) Uniqueness: Well, this is a weird submission to grade in regards to the uniqueness criterion, but I suppose it is a unique form of both card draw and investigate put together modally. (2.5/3) Flavor: I am surprised this card name is not taken! It fits quite nicely here, and it is also flavorful. The flavor text is quite nice as well. However, as a Vorthos, the flavorful and mechanical disconnect of this card prevents me from awarding this card a perfect score. Searching for evidence is not at all random when done by a professional investigator; it is methodical and orderly.
Polish - (2.5/3) Quality: The non-Latin unicode error is a real pain in hindsight. Nevertheless, a long dash '—' should have been used instead of two short dashes. Also, the reminder text for investigate is missing here (minus half a point). (To investigate, create a colorless Clue artifact token with "2, Sacrifice this artifact: Draw a card.") (2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge met! (2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges met!
Total: 17.5/25
Final thought: I would love to play around with a balanced version of this card without the word 'random', though.
Traitor of the Night2BB
Creature - Demon (M)
Flying, lifelink
When Traitor of the Night enters the battlefield, you gain an extra turn after this one. Target opponent gains control of you during that turn.
Whenever Traitor of the Night deals combat damage to a player, each player sacrifices that many non-demon creatures. Power and treachery. What else would you expect from a demon?
6/4
Design - (1.5/3) Appeal: This is definitely a Jenny card through and through. Tammy would prefer players to take their turns one after the other fairly. I doubt that Spike would ever want to play this card under typical circumstances, but this card truly demands an atypical deck, which is fair. (1.5/3) Elegance: As seeing tournament-level play of Emrakul, the Promised End has demonstrated, gaining control of someone else's turn can be a big mess. The inherent complexity of the third line of rules text does not help out this card's elegance, either.
Development - (2.5/3) Viability: Well, this card fits into black nicely on the color wheel. It also is the correct rarity as a mythic.
However, the effect of giving your opponent your turn may be a rules bend. Not enough to break in this day and age, but enough to be a little concerned about this card's viability without it being legendary. (2.5/3) Balance: Believe it or not, this card actually does have somewhat of a precedent to balance around, if a rather old one, known as Eater of Days, kind of. They have the same converted mana cost, which helps. Clearly, this minion has the smaller body, even though it also has lifelink to effectively make up the loss of a turn.
Basically, you have to build your deck around this card, so I doubt that you can ever actually draft it in Limited, which is the main reason that I cannot give this submission a perfect score for this criterion. You really cannot put non-Demon cards into a deck with this, so your early game needs to be spell-based without a chance of backfiring back onto you. Doom Blade is a good start, but I leave it otherwise up to those Modern Johnnies and Jennies to find a way. This card is also a great way to really get to know your friends around a casual or multiplayer table, too.
This card works. Yes, the previous sentence was rather weird for me to type, admittedly.
Creativity - (3/3) Uniqueness: A card like this has never been printed before. End of story. (2.5/3) Flavor: The card does not feel cohesively synonymous for myself as a Vorthos. Basically, the mechanics feel a little too epic compared to this card's flavor. This card looks as though it should be a legendary creature, or is otherwise missing something. Otherwise, I really do quite like the name and the flavor text.
Polish - (2/3) Quality: The words "you gain" should be replaced with the word 'take' (minus half a point). The term "non-demon" should have a capitalized D (minus half a point). (2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge met! (2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges met!
Total: 19.5/25
Final thought: This submission noodled my mind.
Search your library for a creature card with converted mana cost X or less, put it onto the battlefield, then shuffle your library.
Search your library for X plus one basic land cards, reveal those cards, and put one onto the battlefield tapped and the rest into your hand. Then shuffle your library.
Karametra blesses her cities with valorous champions and abundant harvests.
Design - (3/3) Appeal: Johnny likes pretty much any card with X in its mana cost. Timmy loves this card because it allows him to play big creatures for a two mana premium from his library or search for more lands to play more creatures from his hand. Spike could use this card to tutor or ramp as well at a reasonable mana cost, depending on the situation. What an appealing card! (2.5/3) Elegance: Tutoring for multiple cards is never going to be elegant, unfortunately, but this card otherwise earns a near-perfect score for this criterion in my opinion.
Development - (3/3) Viability: Both of this card's modes fit just right into green on the color wheel. The rarity is also correct. (2/3) Balance: This card's mana cost is a little pushed for being a modal spell. Individually, both effects would be fine at a cost of XGG, but together on a modal spell this could be troublesome. I would likely balance both effects by forcing them both to stay in color. The first effect does not search for a green creature specifically unlike Green Sun's Zenith and the second effect does not specifically search for Forests. Otherwise, this card would likely receive a perfect balance score from me. Perhaps this card is fine in practice, admittedly, and in all honesty it may very well just depend on the intended power level of the actual sets that this card could be slotted into.
This looks like a lot of fun in both casual and multiplayer, and also looks like a dream card for any green deck in a limited format (but this is of course fine for a rare card).
Creativity - (1.5/3) Uniqueness: This card is basically Chord of Calling and Nissa's Pilgrimage stapled together as a modal spell. However, I would indeed call it an innovation with the worth of at least half credit for this criterion. (3/3) Flavor: The flavor here is just fabulous! Fantastic!
Polish - (2/3) Quality: It is a bit quirky that the first choice ends with ", then shuffle your library." while the second mode ends with "Then shuffle your library." (minus half a point, as that is just too silly to overlook realistically). There should be no space at all between the rules text and the flavor text (minus half a point). (2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge met! (2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges met!
Total: 21/25
Final thoughts: Using X to get around the first subchallenge's restriction was quite clever, and I was curious if anyone would catch that. Credit where credit is due! In my experience, uniqueness is a small price to pay for an otherwise basically perfect card.
Vile Corrupter2BB
Creature — Human Rogue (Rare) T : You may pay target creature’s mana cost. If you do, gain control of that creature. (This effect lasts indefinitely. Mana cost includes color.) The corruption has a price that some find useful to pay.
2/3
Design - (1.5/3) Appeal: I do not believe that Timmy is of the sort to like this card. Johnny, on the other hand, loves this card for its sheer potential involving lots of mana and lots of untapping. Spike also likes this card, but the fact that the ability is rather restrictive prevents her from necessarily loving it. (2.5/3) Elegance: This card's effect is a little inelegant by its very nature, but this card is still clean enough to have a perfect score.
Development - (2/3) Viability: Rare is the perfect rarity for this card. I am not sure if black is the right color for this card's effect, however. Changing control of permanents has historically been blue on the color wheel. As a result, I would say that this is almost a full-on color hemorrhage. (1.5/3) Balance: This card has a niche outside of what may be its intent, which is taking control of artifact creatures, or other creatures with no colors in their mana cost. It is also indefinite, which is weird because it makes a lot more sense for the effect to last until this creature leaves the battlefield. I am curious as to how this card could warp limited, since if you are versus a black deck that has this card and your black deck does not have this card, you may very well just lose. This card also looks more fun in casual than it does in multiplayer for similar reasons.
Creativity - (1.5/3) Uniqueness: Gaining control of permanents has been done quite a lot already, but this is actually a rather unique way of doing it. Even then, it is still a little bit like Willbreaker and other similar cards. (2.5/3) Flavor: The flavor here is spot on, but it is still not enough to justify this card being black instead of blue.
Polish - (2.5/3) Quality: There is an unnecessary space between the tap symbol and the colon (yes I noticed that, minus half a point). (2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge met! (2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges met!
Total: 18/25
Final thoughts: Thanks to this card, I actually learned today that 'corrupter' is the correct spelling of the word. How weird!
Infernal RetrievalBBB
Sorcery (R)
Choose one -
Put target creature card from a graveyard onto the battlefield under your control. You lose life equal to that card's converted mana cost.
Search your library for a card, reveal it, and put it into your hand, then shuffle your library. You lose life equal to that card's converted mana cost. "Do you suppose what you want or what you need is more expensive?" - Kiv-Xanos, Rakdos summoner
Design - (2/3) Appeal: Timmy does not like paying large amounts of life as a cost. However, both Johnny and Spike do not mind as long as it lets the both of them do whatever they want, and this card does indeed let them both do just that. (3/3) Elegance: Excellently elegant!
Development - (2.5/3) Viability: Black is the perfect placement on this color wheel for this sorcery. However, this card could have perhaps been mythic rare instead of rare as it has two very potent effects in one, plus the mana cost is rather pushed. Nevertheless, rare is borderline okay in this case. (2.5/3) Balance: The first effect is fine; Death was costed as far less, and even then, it was a split card (and it is also a really old card). The second effect is the more frightening of the two choices. As a rare, this would be a must-have if you were playing monoblack in limited. This looks a bit unfriendly for casual, but looks quite friendly for multiplayer by comparison. Admittedly, the strict mana cost and heavy loss of life makes me unsure as to whether or not this card would break anything in particular.
Creativity - (2/3) Uniqueness: Modal cards have been done before, of course, but not a modal tutor card. Even if half of this card is basically Death, the other half combined makes this card too unique to pass up on a high uniqueness score. (3/3) Flavor: The flavor here is spot on. Wonderful work!
Polish - (1/3) Quality: The bullet points were correct in the actual card, but I cannot quote it properly due to the infamous 'non-unicode Latin characters' error that I am currently experiencing. I had hoped that it would go away by the time that I had written up this judgment, but oh well.
However, there are still qualitative errors in this card, mainly in the flavor text. The name of the individual credited as saying the quotation requires it's own line in the flavor text (minus half a point). In addition, there should be no space between the dash and the individual's name (minus half a point). Lastly, the dash just to the left of the name of individual being credited with the quotation should be a long dash '—' and not a short dash (minus half a point); the short dash after "Choose one" should also be a long dash '—' (minus half a point). (2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge met! (2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges met!
Total: 19/25
Final thought: Personally, I would have gone with 'Abyssal Retrieval' for the name of this card, but that is just me as it is the same difference. For what it is worth, I do like what this card is trying to do.
Lethal Provocateur2RR
Creature-Devil (U)
First strike
When Lethal Provocateur enters the battlefield, target creature must attack you during it's controller's next turn, if able. Sharp claws and sharp wit, all wrapped up in an infuriating package. 3/1
Design - (1.5/3) Appeal: This card is a little too small to appeal to Tammy. Spike very much likes this card, however. Jenny likes this card for how it can combo with red's famous power abilities like firebreathing, but this card itself is not really anything to build around. (3/3) Elegance: This card reads a little weirdly, but that is more qualitative and does not detract from the elegance score here for this criterion.
Development - (3/3) Viability: This card's effect definitely fits into red on the color wheel for its innate feeling of impulsiveness. First strike is also primarily red. Uncommon looks to be the right rarity for this card, as well. (3/3) Balance: This card is correctly costed. This card may be a little infuriating to play against, but it is kind of like Lightning Strike attached to a 3/1 creature with first strike, which reads as 'balanced' to me. This card has quite the Limited appeal, but at uncommon and at this mana cost that is totally fine. This card would play well in casual I believe (just think of all the ways you can make sure your creatures do not have to attack); in multiplayer it would especially shine.
Creativity - (1.5/3) Uniqueness: This card's enters the battlefield effect is something that I am surprised Wizards has not done more of in red, actually. It is similar to other mechanics like goad and provoke, yet is also neither of those. (3/3) Flavor: The flavor is spot on. Sharply done!
Polish - (0.5/3) Quality: This card could have fit in the first strike reminder text, but this is not strictly necessary. The apostrophe in 'it's' should be nixed (minus half a point); the very same goes for the comma between turn and if as well (minus half a point). The phrase 'must attack' should simply be the word "attacks" as well (minus half a point). The dash between "Creature" and "Devil" in the type line should be by itself with single spaces rather than serving as a hyphen to connect both words (minus half a point). The power and toughness of the creature should not be bolded (minus half a point). (2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge met! (2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges met!
Total: 19.5/25
Final thought(s): This card's qualitative errors gave me a bit of a headache, to be honest. Please do try for a perfect quality score during the next round!
If your username has been bolded here, congratulations are in order — you have qualified for Round 2 of the September MCC! Best of luck!
If your username has not been bolded here, there is always next month. Thank you for participating; best of luck next month!
Design - (3/3) Appeal: Timmy might like the ramp. Spike likes the extra cards. There's been a history of players being drawn to rituals. (2/3) Elegance: These are two very disconnected effects. Both resources on opposing ends of the spectrum. It's weird how you discard your hand, expecting to draw in return, but then you just exile the top cards of your deck.
Other than that the effects are fairly simple and seem to belong into the same deck.
Development - (2/3) Viability: Devoid has been recieved rather poorly, I question your decision to include it on the card. I see nothing red isn't supposed to do and Mythic is probably the right slot for massive 'impulsive' card draw. (1/3) Balance: This looks like it's problematic when included in a storm deck. It either ramps for 3, which not even Seething Song did or it get's you 7 new cards to play. That's insane. This can't be right.
The cards vanish after a turn and the mana is colorless, so there's that. But playing a Bane of Bala Ged on turn 4 sounds terrifying. Myr Battlesphere also packs quite the punch.
Creativity - (3/3) Uniqueness: There's been some rituals before, but few added that much colorless mana. Also a one-sided Wheel of Fortune with the new red card draw is intriguing. Combining the two sought-after resources in Magic on a modal spell is daring and original. (2/3) Flavor: Kozilek has some history with red alignment. Not sure I get the flavor text. What exactly is Zendikar displaying? Impulsive brainstorming? I don't feel like this has much to do with Zendikar itself at all. The name's fair.
Polish - (2.5/3) Quality: Choose doesn't use ':', it's always a '-' (2/2) Main Challenge: Monocolored Sorcery alright. If I felt like Devoid would actually make a card colorless, I should make you fail here, but I don't, so your passing is a protest of mine against Devoid. (2/2) Subchallenges: Costs 4 and is modal.
Total: 19.5/25
Design - (2/3) Appeal: Spike. Gotta be Spike. Who else would like raw hard to block damage output to win? Johnny might try to do something with the tokens to maximize the power of this, but it's not very challenging and already plays well enough on its own. (3/3) Elegance: It's simple enough I'd say. Just making a bunch of tokens, nothing hard to grasp here, nothing confusing.
Development - (1/3) Viability: So, these short-lived tokens fit very well with red and phoenixes are also in red, but what I have trouble with here is seeing how this is a phoenix at all.
People will expect a phoenix card to have some kind of rebirth mechanic. All of them do. You can't make a phoenix without one, that was a really poor choice. Rare is fine though. (3/3) Balance: A rather mediocre flyer that's got a sort of player-only fireball attached. I can see this is burn decks, as it's quite efficient at getting damage in. Comboing it with anthem effects sounds fun. I like it, even if it's not on the strong side.
Creativity - (1.5/3) Uniqueness: Pretty close to Firecat Blitz, put making it a repeatable effect and giving them flying is neat. (2.5/3) Flavor: Wisps as tiny flying things. I guess I get it. The flavortext is a bit bumpy, but cute. I don't think leaving out articles like that passes as poetry.
Polish - (2.5/3) Quality: Exile them. Not exile those. (2/2) Main Challenge: Just red. (2/2) Subchallenges: 3 =< 4. I can see a ':'
Total: 19.5/25
Design - (1.5/3) Appeal: Spike. This is so Spike. It's also great to make Johnny really really sad. Probably Timmy as well. Uses up all his mana just to get their stuff countered. Ouch. (2/3) Elegance: Pretty convoluted way to forbid a player to counter a card. But other than that it makes a whole lot of sense.
Development - (1.5/3) Viability: Oh boy, where do I begin? So you're making a Meddling Mage. Okay, maybe you don't need the white part, as that's mostly on the naming. But to achieve a very similar effect you make the player search the entire deck.
That takes time. Which is something R&D is trying to avoid these days. Then the opponent goes to fetch a land, picks up their decklist and starts checking. Might as well reveal the card at that point, right? Awkward design. (1/3) Balance: Meddling Mage has always been a very viable card. You gave it flying, made it harder to remove, easier cost requirements, gave it a veeeery relevant creature type and made the effect much stronger.
The opponent may even fall into the trap of casting the card, losing mana in the process. Then they might even tutor for the card first, losing the tutor as well. I'd say you've overdone it here.
Creativity - (3/3) Uniqueness: It IS a very unique way of doing this kind of effect, so that's nice. (2/3) Flavor: The name is a bit bland. There's lots of thiefing faeries out there, what makes this one special? The flavor text is cute.
Polish - (1.5/3) Quality: Flavor text belong it italics. (-0.5)
player's library (-0.5)
player casts (-0.5) (2/2) Main Challenge: Mono blue. (2/2) Subchallenges: Costs less than 4 and has that triggered ability.
Total: 16.5/25
Design - (2.5/3) Appeal: Spike might like the flexible removal. Timmy could be swayed by getting 5/5s out of his lesser creatures. (3/3) Elegance: I like the symmetry of the effects. The effects are simple enough and well established. Neat.
Development - (2/3) Viability: Rare seems like a good fit. Turning creatures into 1/1 is also well in blue's color pie. Turning them into 5/5s not so much. That's a bit big for blue. Ensoul Artifact already felt rather off. (2.5/3) Balance: A limited allstar. Great for casual. Probably not strong enough for constructed. It does make for some really complex board states.
Creativity - (2.5/3) Uniqueness: Sure, Polymorphism is a thing that happens occasionally, but not so much repeatedly on a creature and that symmetric option to turn something big is a nice touch. (1.5/3) Flavor: It's quite some text on the card already, but a little single line of flavortext would have been nice. What I absolutely can not picture is a Vedalken turning people into frogs.
Polymorphists strike me as the quirky funny guys among mages. Just look at Polymorphist's Jest. Most Vedalken don't even know how to smile. But brute force by employing Lizards? Absolutely not.
The card does have that master polymorphist vibe though and seems to make a lot of sense.
Polish - (3/3) Quality: Looks good. (2/2) Main Challenge: Mono blue. (2/2) Subchallenges: Cheap and active.
Total: 21/25
Design - (3/3) Appeal: So, Spike likes their toolboxes. Timmy actually enjoys big effects, not just big creatures. (2/3) Elegance: So, Escalate together with "You may choose the same mode more than once." is a little bit confusing. It's kind of like an X spell, but not really. In any case it's X+1.
Other than that the effects are rather simple.
Development - (3/3) Viability: All effects are well in white and amassing tokens like that should be at rare. (3/3) Balance: So, this can work very well as a "XW: you get X 1/1 tokens." According to Secure the Wastes that's even fine when done at instant speed.
Having the option to remove enchantments or escape impending doom by gaining life seems like a nice option. It seems a bit pushed, but adding another mana wouldn't do it any good.
Creativity - (2/3) Uniqueness: The options themselves are rather bland, but that's a really complex modal spell, the likes we haven't seen before. (2/3) Flavor: So, no flavor text. But I like Crescendo for escalate spells and while there's little glorious about 1/1s, enchantment removal and gaining life, doing them in such big amounts does have some hint of glory about it.
Polish - (3/3) Quality: Looks good. (2/2) Main Challenge: Mono white. (2/2) Subchallenges: CMC of 2 and quite modal.
Total: 22/25
When I first judged the card I missed the part with getting to choose the same mode more than once.
So if you'd like, you may read through my mental breakdown as I come to believe that one of the most experienced designers on here made one of the worst cards I've ever seen:
Design - (1/3) Appeal: So, who enjoys 2 mana enchantment removal with the occasional 1 mana 1/1 dude attached? Maaaaybe Spike. Having sideboard tools against powerful enchantments in limited formats is nice to have.
But as far as thoes go, this has to be the worst option I've seen in a while. I guess it's still better than Erase. (2/3) Elegance: To me, there really isn't much of a connection between the three effects. Compared to a thing of beauty like Savage Alliance it falls rather flat. The effects are simple one-liners though, so it's easy on the mind.
Development - (1.5/3) Viability: Everything well in white. Lifegain, Enchantment removal and single 1/1 creating isn't something that requires rare at all. In fact, you hardly ever see it there. Weird spot for this. (1/3) Balance: Alright, having options is supposed to cost mana. But making Erase cost twice as much? 3 mana for a 1/1 than removes an enchantment? An entire mana for 2 life? This card is just going to get tossed aside, never to be looked at again.
Creativity - (1/3) Uniqueness: None of the effects are new. Nothing new comes from combining them. I guess there's not many effects with a much similar effect out there. (1/3) Flavor: No flavor text makes this hard on me. Crescendo seems like a good name for an escalate spell, yet I fail to see anything glorious about these effects.
Polish - (X/3) Quality:And this was the point when I discovered "You may choose the same mode more than once"... (X/2) Main Challenge: (X/2) Subchallenges:
Total: X/25
Design - (3/3) Appeal: Looks like a Spike card to me, getting lots and lots of value out of their cards. It does make for some interesting deck building though, so Johnny could be interested. (1/3) Elegance: Pretty simple. Yet a major flaw is putting counters on himself. They'll always be 2 counters. Making him a 3/4 would have a very similar effect, unless the set has a heavy cares-about-counters theme.
I don't think the added board complexity is worth it.
Development - (3/3) Viability: Pretty sure this could be done in a lot of colors, but putting it into white with all those tiny creatures makes sense. It's a nice build-around-me uncommon. (1.5/3) Balance: 4 mana for 3/4 is already a good deal, but then that effect is pretty insane. If the opponent can't remove it the following turn it's just going to spiral out of control. Even one white symbol is enough to push some creatures over the edge.
Then it doesn't even help removing him a bit later, as the damage is done. So this is a bit pushed, especially for limited. 3/3 would have been enough entirely.
Creativity - (2/3) Uniqueness:Light from Within plays into a similar design space, but making it a lord that cares about cards getting played is neat. (3/3) Flavor: The name is fair, the flavor text is pretty neat. Good job on those.
Polish - (3/3) Quality: Looks good. (2/2) Main Challenge: Mono white. (2/2) Subchallenges: Triggering and 4 mana.
Total: 20.5/25
Design - (2/3) Appeal: Spike will very much enjoy this. Timmy gets a bit sad that he can't attack. Johnny is sad about losing abilities. (2/3) Elegance: The wording is a bit awkward, having to exlude himself. It's also a bit much text for an effect that's very similar to just exiling the creature.
Last but not least there's a memory issue here.
Development - (3/3) Viability: Naming and then sort of detaining cards is very white. Answers that can be answered even more so. Rare is a good fit. (3/3) Balance: Pretty close to Meddling Mage in some regard. A powerful card, but easy to answer. I think this sits at a great spot.
Creativity - (3/3) Uniqueness: I believe this is where your design shines. Sure, it's close to just exiling the creature, but what if there's two? What if it's not even on the field yet and you want to prevent any etb trigger?
It's a very neat way to explore old design space with a new twist. (2.5/3) Flavor: No idea what a Hieromancer actually is, but judging by the cards that exist your card is just that. The flavortext is a bit bumpy, but fits well with 'naming' a creature, as it's bound by words.
Polish - (2.5/3) Quality: loses (2/2) Main Challenge: Mono white. (2/2) Subchallenges: Cheap and triggering on etb.
Total: 22/25
Design - (2.5/3) Appeal: Timmy really isn't into that kind of Shenanigans. Playing spells isn't clever enough for Johnny. That leaves us with Spike, luckily they love drawing cards and small, yet efficient creatures. (3/3) Elegance: Rather simple, thus elegant.
Development - (2/3) Viability: Well in blue and at the level this is probably a good idea to put it at rare. Having a combat damage clause on a creature with 0 power is just asking for trouble. Newer players are often confused by the fact that 0 damage isn't actually damage. (2.5/3) Balance: So, play removal on curve with this guy and go draw. Except it won't work on the curve, because of the cost. This one is tricky. Probably best combined with cheap burn.
The 1 mana cost for the drawing really weakens this guy to a point where he might not even see play. But without, he'd easily spiral out of control. So this is probably at a fairly okay spot.
Creativity - (3/3) Uniqueness: I actually made something very similiar, did that inspire you, I wonder? Anyways, let's only compare to real cards and I like that combination of 0 power with prowess and a combat damage trigger.
It's clever. Brilliant even. Only the smartest of minds will ever... I should probably stop here. (3/3) Flavor: A cool name that is greatly enhanced by the flavor text. Very fitting for the card as well.
Polish - (3/3) Quality: What's with all the line breaks? Makes it relly hard to read. (2/2) Main Challenge: Mono blue. (2/2) Subchallenges: Triggered and cheap.
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
Judgments not final until the deadline. I would double check my math if I were you. I changed scores a lot as I went, hopefully I updated the final scores as I did.
Jinshu, the Divine Source2W
Legendary Creature - Human Monk (M)
When you cast Jinshu, the Divine Source, create a white legendary artifact token named The Cintamani Stone.
As long as you control an artifact named The Cintamani Stone, you may cast creature cards from your graveyard. (You still pay their costs.)
Prevent all combat damage that would be dealt to and dealt by Jinshu, the Divine Source. "Through virtue of my pacifism and patience, we shall all be blessed by the Vyashana." — Jinshu
0/3
Design -
(2.5/3) Appeal: Johnny loves the idea of being able to cast all of his creature cards from the graveyard. This is costed so that Spike would like it too. This isn’t a big enough body for Timmy to care about, but even he likes the idea of reanimating all his fatties.
(1.5/3) Elegance: This card is pretty wordy, but is still pretty clear. Though I do worry that new players will be confused about whether or not the artifact’s ability would still work if Jinshu wasn’t on the battlefield (which it wouldn’t with the way it’s worded). You could make it so that the artifact itself has that ability, which would cut down on the wording and help with the grokability, but the card would be even more powerful that way.
Development -
(2/3) Viability: Hmmm, this card’s reanimation ability seems more at home in black (or B/W), but I suppose white isn’t really wrong. Mythic feels right for such a powerful effect, and this is powerful enough to warrant legendary status. Everything seems to fit within the rules of Magic.
(0.5/3) Balance: This card is super powerful. It seems like you tried to balance it by making the reanimation ability susceptible to both creature and artifact removal, but it still seems too powerful to me. Haakon, Stromgald Scourge is the closest card I can think of, and that has two downsides tacked on (one pretty major one), costs 2 black, and only affects Knights. This card with an Ornithopter and a Viscera Seer allows you to dig through your entire library by the third turn if everything falls right. I’m afraid the card might be too powerful for any format.
Creativity -
(2.5/3) Uniqueness: I can’t think of anything that allows you cast creature cards from your graveyard like this can, and Phylactery Lich is the only thing I can think of that relies on a permanent that the card itself creates, so I’d say the card is certainly unique. It doesn’t feel super fresh to me though, which is why it’s not a 3 here.
(2.5/3) Flavor: The flavor here seems fine, although it’s bit hard to judge not knowing the story behind this at all. According to Wikipedia, The Cintamani Stone is supposed to be a symbol of prosperity in both the Buddhist and Hindu religions. I’m not sure why it’s returning creatures from the graveyard. But I’m not an expert on religion, and I only did some minor research into it, so I’ll assume you know what you’re talking about. I would guess this card is referring to reincarnation for those that have led a passive and righteous life.
Polish -
(2/3) Quality: Flavor text attribute should be on a second line. (-0.5) Also for the attribute, there should be no space between the dash and the person's name. (-0.5)
(2/2) Main Challenge: Good.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Spot on.
Stuttershift Dancers1UU
Creature - Faerie Wizard (U)
Flash
Flying
When Stuttershift Dancers enters the battlefield, return each other creature that entered the battlefield this turn to its owner's hand. They waltz with a new found partner, leading each step with a blink, until their partner blinks instead.
2/1
Design -
(2/3) Appeal: Spike sees this as pure value. Johnny might try to have some fun returning his own creatures. Timmy isn’t too excited.
(3/3) Elegance: Very easy to understand.
Development -
(2/3) Viability: It’s certainly blue, but this would be a very pushed uncommon, considering Harbinger of the Tides is a rare. I suppose it’s possible it could be an UC, but it would be safer at rare.
(2.5/3) Balance: I think this card is pretty well balanced for all formats, but is borderline in limited at UC. I could see this seeing some play in standard as there is a lot value to be had. This could get a look at some point in Modern, especially if Faeries ever became a thing. I’m not sure it would see play in any of the eternal formats.
Creativity -
(2.5/3) Uniqueness: As far as know, there has never been a card that affects each creature that entered the battlefield this turn in a negative way before. The closest thing I can think of is Oran-Rief, the Vastwood, but that’s an entirely different thing. The card seems like a nice fresh take on some established ideas.
(2/3) Flavor: I’m not really a huge fan of the word Stuttershift, nor am I crazy about the flavor text, but both of those may just be personal opinions.
Master of Reflections1UU
Creature - Human Wizard [Rare] UU: Switch target creature's power and toughness until end of turn.
1/4 Let me show you your best side.
Design -
(1/3) Appeal: Timmy doesn’t care. Spike might take this in limited, but isn’t too excited by it. Johnny might be able to come up with something interesting to do, but also isn’t super-jazzed.
(3/3) Elegance: Simple and easy to understand. Everything fits together nicely.
Development -
(1.5/3) Viability: Color is right, and it breaks no rules, but Merfolk Thaumaturgist says this could be an uncommon (a common if it weren’t for the 4 toughness). I understand that it can be activated more than once per turn, but is a pretty steep mana sink for this effect, especially for a rare.
(2.5/3) Balance: Again, this is pretty low on the power level scale outside of an environment filled with 0/* creatures. It would probably see some play in limited, but it wouldn’t really make an impact anywhere else. Still, Merfolk Thaumaturgist says you got the numbers about right.
Creativity -
(0.5/3) Uniqueness: Again, Merfolk Thaumaturgist.
(3/3) Flavor: The flavor is quite good.
Polish -
(2/3) Quality: The flavor text should be in quotes as it appears as though it is being said by the Master himself. (-0.5) The flavor text should come between the rules text and the P/T. (-0.5)
(2/2) Main Challenge: Got it.
(2/2) Subchallenges: All good.
Lithen, Tormented Visionary1BB
Legendary Creature - Human Berserker (R)
Trample
At the beginning of each end step, if Lithen, Tormented Visionary attacked or blocked this turn, put a -1/-1 counter on it unless you exile a card from your hand. She fights blindly for her twisted ideals, falling further with every passing victory.
5/5
Design -
(2.5/3) Appeal: Timmy loves a big cheap beater. So does Spike, although he wishes it weren’t legendary. Johnny might like to make a deck that removes or uses the -1/-1 counters.
(2/3) Elegance: The card is easy enough to understand, but I feel like people would usually opt for the -1/-1 counter unless they have a lot of extra lands or copies of Lithen in hand. The exiling of the card just doesn’t seem to fit right to me.
Development -
(2/3) Viability: Everything is on color, and the rarity seems right, but I’m just not sure this seems very legendary to me from a power level standpoint. It doesn’t break any rules.
(2.5/3) Balance: I don’t see this creating a problem in any formats. It would get picked in limited, and might see some play in standard, particularly if the environment allowed you to benefit from the -1/-1 counters some way. I’m not sure this would have much impact anywhere else. Again, I’m not sure the drawback of being legendary is really needed here. I do find it interesting that you could just let this build counters, then play a new one and sac the old one.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: This card is basically a reverse Clockwork creature with another option added on. Still, I’m not aware of anything quite like it.
(2.5/3) Flavor: The flavor seems pretty good to me. The -1/-1 counters line up nicely with the flavor text.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Excellent.
(2/2) Main Challenge: Indeed.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Nailed it.
"Molten metal is useful for all kinds of things. Melting metal, for instance." -- Kodra, dwarven forgeboss
Design -
(1.5/3) Appeal: Spike likes the utility, but wishes it wasn’t double red. It’s a bit straight forward for Johnny. Timmy prefers his burn spells to the face.
(3/3) Elegance: Direct and simple. Very good.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: Everything looks spot on to me.
(3/3) Balance: I see no problems here. I might want to try this at even. This would see play in limited, and possibly standard, depending on how many artifacts are around. I don’t see this making a big splash anywhere else.
Creativity -
(1/3) Uniqueness: These two choices have been on the same card before, even if the numbers were different. Ex. Fiery Confluence, Kolaghan’s Command.
(3/3) Flavor: Very good here. I could totally see that name and flavor text on a card.
Polish -
(2/3) Quality: Flavor text attribute should be on a separate line. (-0.5) Also, there should be no space between the dash and the person's name in the flavor text attribute. (-0.5)
(2/2) Main Challenge: You got it.
(2/2) Subchallenges: A+
Drunken Brawler1R
Creature - Human Warrior (Uncommon) R: Drunken Brawler gets +1/+0 until end of turn. T: Drunken Brawler fights target creature. (Each deals damage equal to its power to the other.)
0/2
Design -
(2/3) Appeal: Spike likes a beater that can act as repeatable removal. Johnny might want to figure out how to keep this around to fight another day. Timmy doesn’t want to keep spending mana to make his creature big.
(3/3) Elegance: Very easy to understand. Everything seems good here.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: Red is good, and this doesn’t break any rules. It almost seems borderline rare, but UC is probably right. I’m not sure Wizards would print a card with “Drunken” in the name, but I won’t deduct any points ‘cause that seems stupid.
(2.5/3) Balance: I worry a bit about something that can act as repeated removal, but using Spikeshot Goblin as a comparison, this seems fine. It would see play in limited, but I’m not so sure about standard, unless there was a viable burn deck that needed another card. I don’t see this getting played anywhere else.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: Although there is nothing really new here on its own, the combination of abilities seems new and fresh.
(1/3) Flavor: No flavor text? It could certainly fit some. Again, I’m not sure the name would fly at Wizards, but I like it personally.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Another error free entry. Great!
(2/2) Main Challenge: Yes.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Check.
Retalitory Griffin2WW
Creature — Griffin Minion (U)
Defender, flying Pain — Whenever you lose life, Retalitory Griffin loses defender and gains vigilance. (This effect last indefinitely.)
3/5
Design -
(1.5/3) Appeal: Spike likes a 3/5 vigilant flyer in limited. Timmy does too, but might be turned off by the word “defender”. Johnny doesn’t care.
(1.5/3) Elegance: This is easy to understand, and the reminder text helps a lot here. Pain could benefit from some sort of marker to help with tracking. Also, a formatting error makes this a bit more confusing than it should be. It should say “When you lose life…” not “Whenever you lose life..” Your wording makes it seem like it should be an “until end of turn” effect, even though it is a one-time effect that turns on another effect. It makes me question if I even know exactly how pain works. I’ll mention this again later, in quality.
Development -
(2/3) Viability: White seems good, and the rarity is ok, but I just can’t see pain being a thing, especially without a marker of some sort. There just isn’t enough design space, and the idea doesn’t seem that exciting. It would help if it was more like renown or monstrosity. Something like “When you lose life, if this isn’t in pain, put a pain counter on it. It is in pain.” Then you could make cards that say “As long as this creature is in pain, <effect>.” Or “Creatures you control that are in pain get <ability>.”
(2/3) Balance: There is nothing broken about this card. It would be a bomb in limited, but I can’t see it being played anywhere else.
Creativity -
(1.5/3) Uniqueness: Pain is new, but that’s about it.
(0.5/3) Flavor: Retaliatory Griffin is a little too close to Retaliator Griffin for me. Also, there’s no flavor text even though there is plenty of room.
Polish -
(2/3) Quality: “Whenever you lose life…” should be “When you lose life..”. See elegance for more detail. (-1)
(2/2) Main Challenge: Good
(2/2) Subchallenges: Ditto.
Chaos and Slaughter1RR
Sorcery R
Choose one, then flip two coins. For each flip you win, you may make an additional choice that hasn't been chosen --
Chaos and Slaughter deals 3 damage to target creature without flying.
Chaos and Slaughter deals 4 damage to target player.
Chaos and Slaughter deals 5 damage to target creature with flying.
Design -
(2/3) Appeal: This has enough power potential for Spike to take a look, even with the chaos downside. Some Johnnies seem to love coin flip nonsense. Timmy isn’t super excited.
(2.5/3) Elegance: It’s a bit wordy, but pretty easily understood.
Development -
(2/3) Viability: Rare seems right, but red doesn’t usually deal damage specifically to flyers. That’s green’s job. Red usually does damage specifically to nonflyers. See Earthquake for example. The card doesn’t break any rules.
(2/3) Balance: Hmmm, this is tough. This is really strong under the right conditions, possibly too strong, but if you don’t hit your flips, it’s just not that great. Still, it would see play in draft, and also table-top coin flip decks (yes that’s a thing). It might even get a look in Standard since the upside is so high. Even if only two modes are turned on, the card is pretty strong.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: I haven’t seen a modal coin flip card, even if each effect isn’t groundbreaking in itself.
(1/3) Flavor: No room for flavor text. The name is a bit generic, and I’m not sure how much I like it, but it is passable.
Polish -
(2.5/3) Quality: The first line of the rules text is wrong. Seeing as how there is no exact precedent for the ability, I'm only deducting a half point for this. I think it should be more like this….“Flip two coins. Choose one, then choose another one for each coin flip you won —“ or maybe "Flip two coins. Choose one plus up to one for each coin flip you won —" (-0.5)
(2/2) Main Challenge: No doubt!
(2/2) Subchallenges: Word!
(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)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Elite Hieromancer WW
Creature - Human Cleric (rare)
As Elite Hieromancer enters the battlefield, name a creature card that isn't Elite Hieromancer.
Creatures with the chosen name can't attack or block, and loses all abilities.
"You are only free when I say so."
2/2
Augur of Mysteries U
Creature - Human Monk (R)
Prowess (Whenever you cast a noncreature spell, this creature gets +1/+1 until end of turn.)
Whenever Augur of Mysteries deals combat damage to a player, you may pay 1. If you do, draw a card.
The questions he ponders are as cryptic as the conclusions he reaches.
0/1
Wideweb Spider 1GG
Creature - Spider (U)
Reach
1GG: Prevent all damage that would be dealt by flying creatures and creatures blocked by Wideweb Spider this turn.
"And the swampfolk think they know what futility looks like." - Iya, Faerie Vanguard
2/3
Retalitory Griffin 2WW
Creature — Griffin Minion (U)
Defender, flying
Pain — Whenever you lose life, Retalitory Griffin loses defender and gains vigilance. (This effect last indefinitely.)
3/5
Learn From Your Enemies 1UU
Sorcery (R)
Draw a card for each land target opponent controls, then discard a card for each land you control.
If your rival goes well, don't envy. Try to find why.
Chaos and Slaughter 1RR
Sorcery R
Choose one, then flip two coins. For each flip you win, you may make an additional choice that hasn't been chosen --
Firespray Dragon 2RR
Creature - Dragon R
Flying
Whenever Firespray Dragon deals combat damage to a player, you may choose one —
CCL Winner- July '08, Aug '08 Sept '08, Oct '08
Survivor- CCS: Lost in Takenuma, CCS: Stranded In Tolaria
Vedalken Polymorpher 1UU
Creature - Vedalken Wizard (Rare)
1U, t: Another target creature loses all abilities and becomes a green Frog with base power and toughness 1/1 until end of turn.
2UU, t: Another target creature loses all abilities and becomes a green Lizard with base power and toughness 5/5 until end of turn.
2/2
Infernal Retrieval BBB
Sorcery (R)
Choose one -
• Put target creature card from a graveyard onto the battlefield under your control. You lose life equal to that card's converted mana cost.
• Search your library for a card, reveal it, and put it into your hand, then shuffle your libary. You lose life equal to that card's converted mana cost.
"Do you suppose what you want or what you need is more expensive?" - Kiv-Xanos, Rakdos summoner
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
Bestial Onslaught 1GGG
Instant (R)
Choose one. If you control a creature with power 5 or greater, you may choose two instead. If you control a creature with power 10 or greater, you may choose three instead.
Lethal Provocateur 2RR
Creature-Devil (U)
First strike
When Lethal Provocateur enters the battlefield, target creature must attack you during it's controller's next turn, if able.
Sharp claws and sharp wit, all wrapped up in an infuriating package.
3/1
Blydden
BrainPo
Koopa
Legend
mederer
thenoodler
StonerOfKruphix
Venser_FR
void_nothing
Your BFF
bravelion83
glurman
Jimmy Groove
L0ng5h0t
mirrodin71
Necarg
Raptorchan
RedGauntlet
sperlman
doomfish
admirableadmiral
Forestguy
Freyleyes
netn10
RaikouRider
Snow Creature - Penguin
Tesco(black)lotus
Vertain
Flatline
Amuzet
Clockwork Gamer
DaAwesomeCheeto
Folza
Groovelord
IcariiFA
Marco
Voxzorz
Design
(2/3) Appeal - Timmy would like to copy his dead big creatures, but if he does they're not that big anymore, and this is a letdown to him. Johnny absolutely loooves this! There is so much he can do with this! Spike is not that interested unless Johnny discovers some powerful combos.
(1.5/3) Elegance - A bit wordy and complex to use, as you have to remember which card this is copying while that card is still in the graveyard (if it were exiled you could just put it under this card) and you also have to remember the overwritten stats. Still, on a surface level, it's easy enough to understand.
Development
(3/3) Viability - Everything is in color and rarity feels appropriate.
(2/3) Balance - This is similar to Quicksilver Gargantuan, but it has a key difference: 1/1 vs 7/7. There is also the graveyard vs battlefield difference, but it doesn't have as many consequences. You want to use the Gargantuan in limited because as a 7/7 it's huge: you can copy a little creature with useful abilites and have it grow big. Here it's the opposite: if you copy a creature you're shrinking it down to a 1/1 no matter what base power and toughness it might have, and that's not what you want in limited. At least you get a 2/2 body in addition to the token, but most of the time you'll play this in limited as though it were a 2/2 that comes with a random 1/1 token. Don't misunderstand me: three power over two different bodies for three mana is very playable in limited, but what I'm saying is that the copy aspect won't matter there most of the time. All of this is also true for constructed, but with an important difference: you could copy creatures with relevant abilities and/or part of a combo where the power and toughness do not matter. Not that they don't matter in constructed, but in limited they just matter much more. In multiplayer, this has to potential to get better as there will be multiple graveyards to choose cards to copy from.
Creativity
(1.5/3) Uniqueness - As I read this card, Body Double immediately jumped to my mind. This is a new twist on it, with creating a 1/1 token instead of having a Clone, but nothing more.
(3/3) Flavor - The name is fine and the flavor text is good too. I like the emphasis touch on the word "illusions". The flavor text also makes me curious to know more about the two characters, especially Micheal, and that's a very good place to be in flavor: teasing the readers and making they want to know more. You don't want to do it on every card but done in small doses it's a great way to make people want to know the story.
Polish
(2.5/3) Quality - In the attribution, there should be no space between the dash (that should be long but you may be a victim of the antispam non-Latin characters restriction) and the name of the character (-0.5).
(2/2) Main Challenge - Good.
(2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
Total: 19.5/25
The potential for memory issues and the low originality almost costed you elimination, but in the end others did more mistakes and you're basically advancing just because of that. You got lucky but more work expects you next round. See you then!
Design
(2/3) Appeal - Timmy likes this as it lets him deal damage with his own big fliers without worrying about them dying in combat. Johnny could think of using this for protection but this card doesn't appeal that much to him. Spike likes a pseudo-recurrent Fog, but I don't see him getting fully excited by this card.
(3/3) Elegance - As short as it can be and easily understandable.
Development
(2.5/3) Viability - Everything is in color, and I am amazed that such a green card hasn't been printed yet. Damage prevention is one of the many areas where green and white overlap, but making it specific for fliers feels really green. Coupling that with creatures blocked by this is also very interesting. As for rarity, this reads fine as an uncommon at first, but the prevention ability being repeatable makes me wonder if this should be rare. Hard to say without playtest.
(2/3) Balance - In limited, this would already be playable without the damage prevention ability. In all constructed formats, I think this would at most be a sideboard card against decks with lots of fliers. I expect better options for your maindeck three-mana slots to be there. No particular problems in casual or multiplayer.
Creativity
(3/3) Uniqueness - Much to my surprise, I checked Gatherer and I discovered that damage prevention from fliers specifically has been done only three times before, on very old cards that are all either white or artifacts. Those cards are Al-Abara's Carpet, Scarecrow, and Songstitcher. It's never been done in green even though such effect feels really at home there. Coupling that with the second half of that ability makes this card feel even better in this regard.
(2.5/3) Flavor - The name and flavor text are good enough. The flavor of a spider with reach has been a little overdone though by now.
Designer: "I have a creature with reach. What could it possibly be?"
Creative: "Why are you even asking? It's a spider!"
Polish
(0/3) Quality - "flying creatures" should be "creatures with flying" (-1 as this is a very well known fact). The flavor text should be in italics (again -1 for the same reason) and with the attribution on a separate line (-0.5). Also in the attribution, there should be no space between the dash (that should be long but you may be a victim of the antispam non-Latin characters restriction) and the name of the character (-0.5).
(2/2) Main Challenge - Good.
(2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
Total: 19/25
I really liked your card and it has no major issues, but unfortunately what decided your elimination was the high quantity of Quality mistakes (pun partly intended). Even just remembering to put the flavor text in italics would have been enough to advance. I'm sorry. I hope you had fun anyway and I expect to see you again next month. Prepare your best Kaladesh-inspired designs!
Design
(2/3) Appeal - Timmy likes this even though he would have like this to be a bit bigger. Spike, at the contrary, likes this more as is. He just sees this card as a 3/4 flier that deals two more damage when it connects. Not much for Johnny here.
(2.5/3) Elegance - A bit on the wordy side, but very easy to understand.
Development
(3/3) Viability - Everything is in color and rarity feels appropriate.
(2.5/3) Balance - This may be too small to be a "bomb" in the usual sense in limited, but it's still very good there and you'll always play it in your red limited decks. An evasive creature that deals with opposing 1- or 2-toughness creatures looks great in limited. It could see some Standard play too, even though I'm not 100% sure. I still wouldn't be surprised to see this as the top of the curve of a Standard monored deck. In older formats, I can see this being a sideboard card against artifact decks at best. No problem in casual or multiplayer.
Creativity
(1/3) Uniqueness - Nothing in this card is particularly unique, it's just that this exact combination of effects has never been done before. Each single effect is something we see in every set.
(1/3) Flavor - The name makes sense with the abilities except maybe the last mode. The flavor also feels a bit generic to me. Most dragons spit fire. Up to a couple lines of flavor text could have fit according to MSE.
Polish
(2.5/3) Quality - The correct use of the long dash makes me understand you're not a victim of the antispam non-Latin character restriction, so you could (and should) have used bullet points instead of the list tag to avoid the unnecessary line break between rules text and P/T (-0.5). It's a known behavior of the list tag that it leaves a blank line underneath it.
(2/2) Main Challenge - Good.
(2/2) Subchallenges - Both met. You even did a modal ability even though it was the other option's subchallenge. I can't give you one more point for it though.
Total: 18.5/25
What caused your elimination is essentially the Creativity section: a too generic flavor with too common effects. Making slightly better in either one of those things would have been enough for you to advance, but together they knocked you out. I'm sorry, especially because I personally like your card anyway, but that's what happened. I hope you had fun anyway and I expect to see you again next month. Prepare your best Kaladesh-inspired designs!
Design
(2/3) Appeal - Too small for Timmy to care. Not much for Johnny here. Spike loves this as a 2/2 lifelink for one mana that can't block.
(3/3) Elegance - Short and easy to understand.
Development
(2/3) Viability - Everything but unleash is in color. Unleash has never been in white. The +1/+1 counter is no problem, white makes plenty of those, but it doesn't really get "can't block". I honestly have a hard time seeing that phrase on a white card. If we admit unleash in white, I can actually see this at common. The potential memory issues are prevented by the counter acting as a marker. Commons are definitely the hardest cards to design, and you did a good job.
(2.5/3) Balance - This is certainly limited playable. Some particular decks, like white weenie or hyper aggro, might also want this card in constructed, but this isn't a card that any white deck will want for Standard. I see no problem in casual and multiplayer.
Creativity
(3/3) Uniqueness - Unleash in white is definitely unique.
(1/3) Flavor - I think the legion this character has been expelled from is the Rakdos guild. As a Rakdos outcast, he gets to keep a Rakdos mechanic but in a color outside of Rakdos. If you see it this way, the flavor works, but then why the Soldier creature type? I don't remember the Rakdos having soldiers, maybe this character recycled himself as a soldier after getting exiled from the Rakdos? This looks to me as a wonderful occasion to explain all this with flavor text, but here there is none! Up to three lines fit according to MSE.
Polish
(1.5/3) Quality - In the last ability, the comma should be a full stop (-0.5) and two commas are missing (in between "it it" and after "otherwise", two times -0.5 = -1). The wording should have been:
As long as Expelled Legionary has a +1/+1 counter on it, it has lifelink. Otherwise, it has first strike.
(2/2) Main Challenge - Good.
(1/2) Subchallenges - Costs less than four, but has no activated or triggered abilities. All abilities on this card are static.
Total: 18/25
Using unleash in white has been a double-edged sword: it boosted your Uniqueness score but it has some problems with the color pie. In the end, the latter side prevailed unfortunately for you, also because of your choice to ignore one of the subchallenges. I still don't know whether it was intentional or you thought that one of the abilities (maybe the last?) was triggered rather than static. Remember: a triggered ability always starts with "when", "whenever", or "at". Abilities starting with "as" are actually static. I'm sorry. I hope you had fun anyway and I expect to see you again next month. Prepare your best Kaladesh-inspired designs!
Design
(2/3) Appeal - Timmy doesn't care. Johnny might use this for protecting and find his combo. Spike is clearly the one this card is meant for, and he really likes to counter a spell while also getting a 1/3 and a card out of the exchange, but having to pay six mana to do so turns him down a little.
(2.5/3) Elegance - Wordy, but still easy to understand.
Development
(3/3) Viability - Everything is in color and rarity is definitely right. I wouldn't want to see this at any rarity less than rare.
(2/3) Balance - A 1/3 cantrip for three mana would probably be limited playable by itself, but it's certainly not what you're looking for in a rare. So the value has to come from godspeed, and in limited this card delivers. Being able to counter your opponent's bomb or removal spell while also getting a 1/3 and a card looks very appealing in limited. Six mana is a lot to pay in constructed though. I can't remember any counterspell played in Standard that costs more than four mana, maybe in some rare case five mana, but definitely not six mana. I see no problems in casual or multiplayer.
Creativity
(1/3) Uniqueness - Godspeed, which is the only original thing we have here, is literally just the Rout cycle keyworded. The only thing that changes is that the additional amount to pay is now variable. It's not that big of a difference.
(3/3) Flavor - The name is good and it fits very nicely with a counterspell on a stick. The flavor text is very nice too: one thread cut (the countered spell) and another one born (the drawn card).
Polish
(2/3) Quality - As a keyword, "godspeed" should not be capitalized when it's not at the beginning of the line, for this card that means in the reminder text and in the first triggered ability (two times -0.5 = -1).
(2/2) Main Challenge - Good.
(2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
Total: 19.5/25
The similarity to the Rout cycle and the wrong capitalization almost costed you elimination, but in the end others did more mistakes and you're basically advancing just because of that. You got lucky but more work expects you next round. See you then!
Design
(2.5/3) Appeal - Timmy doesn't care. Johnny can dig into his library to look for combo pieces. Spike really likes the card advantage this card gives him if he's behind in lands. He will never refuse drawing cards, but that's when he needs it the most.
(3/3) Elegance - Short and very easily understandable. The wonderful flavor helps too. This card really makes sense as a whole.
Development
(3/3) Viability - Looting is blue and this is essentially a variant on that, so no problems with the color pie. Rarity feels right as this can potentially generate huge amounts of card advantage.
(2.5/3) Balance - For limited, this card immediately reminded me of the Quadrant Theory by Marshall Sutcliff (if you don't know what it is I think googling "mtg quadrant theory" or something like that is enough). Remember when he said that the most valuable quadrant is "behind" and the most valuable cards (at least in limited) are those that can help you in that situation? Well, I think that is exactly the strength of this card. If you're behind, you probably have less lands than your opponents, especially if you're mana screwed, and as long as you have three mana available this generates the card advantage you need to help you get back on track. If you're ahead on lands than this is card disadvantage, but then you can just not play it unless you badly need some card selection (say you have all lands left in your hand when you have enough on the battlefield already). A similar reasoning could maybe apply to Standard. I can't see this in older formats. Being "target" opponent helps this card being balanced in multiplayer, I don't even want to imagine what that being "each opponent" would imply and how much card advantage you would get out of this...
Creativity
(1.5/3) Uniqueness - A nice new twist on the looting effect, but nothing to write home about as far as originality goes.
(3/3) Flavor - I absolutely love the flavor of this card, I think it's definitely the best of all cards in my bracket and maybe more. The name and flavor text are wonderful and I could very easily see both of them as is on a real card. I also like very much how well they reflect the mechanics.
Polish
(2.5/3) Quality - "from" is a preposition so it should not be capitalized in the card name unless it's at the beginning of the line, which is not here (-0.5).
(2/2) Main Challenge - Good.
(1/2) Subchallenges - Costs less than four but is not a modal spell.
Total: 21/25
Making a short and elegant card with a wonderful flavor that also is mechanically relevant proved a good choice, as it often does. Good job! See you next round!
Design
(1.5/3) Appeal - Timmy doesn't care. Johnny can dig into his library to look for combo pieces, but there should be better ways to do that. Spike likes the value this kind of cards can give him by replacing themselves, but he will play Phyrexian Rager over this all life long.
(3/3) Elegance - Perfect in this regard.
Development
(3/3) Viability - Everything is in color and rarity feels appropriate. Notice that the Rager is common, so a strictly worse version of it can certainly be too. "Strictly worse" in this contest is defined as worse in the vast majority of cases. Corner cases existing don't invalidate that.
(1/3) Balance - Again, this is a strictly worse Phyrexian Rager, so if the Rager didn't broke any format and only saw limited play as far as I know, this would too. I actually see this as an underpowered card. The good part of that is that you're not breaking the game. The bad part is that, well... it's underpowered. No problem in casual or multiplayer.
Creativity
(0/3) Uniqueness - We see this effect literally in every set. For example, Live Fast has just been spoiled for Kaladesh. Also, Phyrexian Rager is already a card and the only things that are different here are the creature type and the power. It doesn't help that this one is the worst between the two.
(1.5/3) Flavor - I personally feel pirates are way overvalued in flavor, but that is just my own personal thought. The flavor of a pirate stealing a treasure (the card) for you at a price (1 life) works very well anyway. The name is fine for that flavor. Too bad there is no flavor text even though there is plenty of room for it.
Polish
(3/3) Quality - A missing space between the subtypes and rarity, but I don't feel that's enough to deduct points, especially because on a real card they're not attached anyway (they have different alignment instead).
(2/2) Main Challenge - Good.
(2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
Total: 17/25
Making a strictly worse Phyrexian Rager might not have been the best idea after all. I'm sorry. I hope you had fun anyway and I expect to see you again next month. Prepare your best Kaladesh-inspired designs!
Design
(2.5/3) Appeal - Timmy likes very much being rewarded for controlling large creatures by putting even more creatures onto the battlefield and pumping all of them. To Spike, the check on power is mostly winmore, but he likes the versatility of a modal spell and the remote potential of creating a 5/5 trample haste for just four mana at instant speed. He has to control a creature with power 10+ to do so however and that looks way too restricting to him. Johnny could maybe use the haste but I can't see much for him here.
(2/3) Elegance - Very wordy but also very easily understandable.
Development
(3/3) Viability - Everything is in color and rarity feels appropriate.
(3/3) Balance - The four-mana 5/5 flash trample haste scenario looks difficult enough to achieve so that's fine. This card looks playable in limited, especially if you are heavy green (the triple colored cost is no joke) and you have enough big creatures in your deck to be able to choose two modes reliably. In constructed the versatility of this card is key and I think this could see Standard play. In casual and multiplayer, this could get even better as you have more time to get out big creatures to choose more modes.
Creativity
(1/3) Uniqueness - The mode are all things we see in every set. The original thing here was probably meant to be the "if you control a creature with power 5+… power 10+" part, but unfortunately Mayael's Aria is a card and I didn't even have to search Gatherer to remember it. I did check Gatherer but just for confirmation and searching directly for the card's name as I remembered it quite well. This won't feel that original to anyone who played in Alara. Though, there are still many players today that weren't yet playing at the time, and this card may feel original to them.
(2/3) Flavor - The name is very good. If Bestial Menace exists, I can't see why not this. No flavor text, but MSE confirms me there is actually not room for it, so it's not a big problem.
Polish
(3/3) Quality - All good. Accepting the "put a token onto the battlefield" vs "create" as we're still in the transition period. Just remember that starting next month you will have to use "create".
(2/2) Main Challenge - Good.
(2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
Total: 20.5/25
Your card is long and wordy, and that hurts. It is also nicely balanced and still clean enough anyway, and that helps. In the end, the good side prevailed, luckily for you. Still, remember to try to always use the shortest wording possible. Also, piggybacking is a powerful force, but hurts originality. Changing the numbers from Mayael's Aria would have already helped. Anyway, you still did a good enough job to advance. See you next round!
Raptorchan: 21
sperlman: 20.5
glurman: 19.5
Necarg: 19.5
Jimmy Groove: 19
L0ng5h0t: 18.5
mirrodin71: 18
RedGauntlet: 17
MCC - Winner (6): Oct 2014, Apr Nov 2017, Jan 2018, Apr Jun 2019 || Host (15): Dec 2014, Apr Jul Aug Dec 2015, Mar Jul Aug Oct 2016, Feb Jul 2017, Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) || Judge (34): every month from Nov 2014 to Nov 2016 except Oct 2015, every month from Feb to Jul 2017 except Apr 2017, then Oct 2017, May Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here)
CCL - Winner (3): Jul 2016 (tied with Flatline), May 2017, Jul 2019 (last one here) || Host (5): Feb 2015, Mar Apr May Jun 2016
DCC - Winner (1): Mar 2015 (tied with Piar) || Host (3): May Oct 2015, Jan 2016
• The two public custom sets I've been part a part of the design team for:
"Brotherhood of Ormos" - Blog post with all info - set thread - design skeleton / card list || "Extinctia: Homo Evanuit" - Blog post with all info - set thread - card list spreadsheet
• "The Lion's Lair", my article series about MTG and custom card design in particular. Latest article here. Here is the article index. Rather outdated by now, and based on the old MCC rubric, but I'm leaving this here for anybody that might be interested anyway.
• My only public attempt at being a writer: the story of my Leonin custom planeswalker Jeff Lionheart. (I have a very big one that I'm working on right now but that's private for now, and I don't know if I will ever actually publish it, and I also have ideas for multiple future ones, including one where I'm going to reprise Jeff.)
Judgments are not final until Round 2 begins, which will be tomorrow afternoon.All judgments have been reviewed and are now final.(1.5/3) Appeal: A card like this has an exciting idea, especially for Johnny since it is a niche card. Timmy enjoys anything that ramps, although this ramp is very specific. This specificity is also a problem for Spike, especially since there are not that many impulsive draw cards that could actually use this card's mana as far as I know.
(3/3) Elegance: Elegant enough to cast from exile!
Development -
(2/3) Viability: However, I am not sure if this would see print at common, although it could perhaps see print at uncommon. Official Magic: The Gathering cards have made a conscious shift away from creatures that add mana to your mana pool for only 1 CMC, as it homogenizes the pool of cards similarly to Lightning Strike and Doom Blade. A nice and easy fix would be to make this card a 2/1 for 1R, however. Nonetheless, this is still the sort of card that I would like to see printed someday whenever there are enough cards in the card pool that are similar to Act on Impulse.
As a note, mana acceleration is both red and green, yet red primarily does it in the form of sorceries or instants while green primarily taps permanents for its mana. So, there is a bit of a color bleed here in an odd and unusual way.
(1.5/3) Balance: Depending on however many cards in a limited format that can impulsively draw cards that there are, this card would either be a limited all-star or a limited last pick. Everywhere else, I do not picture this card doing enough in order to break anything in particular as of yet. It is just not very good in constructed formats as of right now, but would be just fine in casual or multiplayer.
Creativity -
(3/3) Uniqueness: "Spend this mana only to cast spells from exile." is a very unique line of rules text that has never seen print before on any official Magic: The Gathering card. Well done!
(2/3) Flavor: "Mad Cultist" is a very generic name, and honestly reads more like a black card in some respects. (I am surprised that it is actually an unused name, as a matter of fact.)
The flavor text honestly reads as though it should be a quotation spoken by the actual person that is being depicted with the card.
As a Vorthos player, I cannot say that I am really pleased, but at least the rules text of the card are succinctly flavorful.
Polish -
(1.5/3) Quality: The second sentence of rules text should read "Spend this mana only to cast spells from exile." (minus one and a half points due to a necessary rewrite of a sentence of rules text).
(2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge met!
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges met!
Total: 18.5/25
Final thoughts: They have gone mad! Absolutely mad!
(1.5/3) Appeal: This is definitely a Johnny card that encourages you to accrue enough life to best use this card to its full potential, especially since it can untap itself for some sort of engine. Spike would definitely like to use this card since it can remove anything that can be pinged over and over, especially since life is a resource for her. Timmy is unexcited by this card.
(2/3) Elegance: The untap symbol is inherently inelegant, and the continuous tapping and untapping would get a little repetitive to use which would also be an elegance problem.
Development -
(1/3) Viability: I am doubting as to whether or not this card fits only onto red on the color wheel mechanically. The second ability basically reads "Pay 1 life: Untap Wild Sparkspitter" which is black. The untap symbol is unnecessary as a result, and Wizards of the Coast themselves alongside that the untap symbol is a design failure. If anything, this card could be multicolored as red and black. This card also perhaps should be rare instead of uncommon due to its complexity and ability to remove anything that can be pinged with enough life.
(0.5/3) Balance: There are a couple cards that I would like to compare this card with, balance-wise, even if they are both outside of Standard: Gut Shot and Crackleburr. The former card tells us that 2 life and a card is worth about 1 damage. R gets Shock by default, however, so it is easy to say that Gut Shot by itself is a little weak, but not weak enough to allow precedent for this card in my opinion, even if it can only target creatures (and thank goodness for that at least).
The latter card tells us that this card cannot be strong on its own, yet synergy with other cards would make this more interesting as a card. Essentially, this card cannot be this repeatable for a cost that is so minimal. It could even be a tap/untap engine after it has been played, allowing one to pay 20 life to convoke for 20 or something else equally absurd, and I am certain that I am only hinting at the surface of the possible combos here. All official untap cards also come with an attached mana cost as a result of this, while this card has no mana cost attached to it, only a minimal amount of life payment.
This card is also oppressive because it can also just kill the majority of possible creatures on the board with enough life if left alive, especially only a few turns into the game.
There is no non-eternal format that I do not see this card making less enjoyable, unfortunately.
Creativity -
(1.5/3) Uniqueness: Red has plenty of pingers, but repeatable pingers that deal damage to the controller are at least a little more unique.
(2.5/3) Flavor: I am not a Chandra expert, but I do not picture a mono-red planeswalker saying that anything is too wild for them. However, card is indeed very wild, spitting sparks everywhere and all of that.
Polish -
(2/3) Quality: The name of the person speaking the quotation requires it's own line in the flavor text (minus half a point). This card also needs reminder text since it uses the untap symbol (minus half a point). (Q is the untap symbol.)
In addition, the dash right next to the name of person being credited with the quotation should be a long dash '—' and not a short dash.
(2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge met!
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges met!
Total: 15/25
Final thoughts: This judgment was a difficult one to write, as I did not want to be harsh, but this card is of the sort that really needs to go back to the drawing board. My apologies.
(0.5/3) Appeal: Despite this looking like it should be a Timmy card, it is a little too small for Timmy, and even if it gets bigger, it actually would still be a little too small for him. Johnny does not need this card for his machinations. Spike does not need this card for her gameplay, either, as it is basically an on-curve vanilla creature currently.
(2.5/3) Elegance: The improper textual template that has been used here detracts from this card's elegance score. If this were actually printed, I feel as though the text would sort of be all over the place in an unfamiliar way. Ravenous itself does not seem to be inelegant design.
Development -
(2.5/3) Viability: This card definitely goes with the grain of New World Order, and hence can exist at common. Exiling cards from graveyards can be done at green, but it would typically done in all other colors first, so it is not quite a perfect fit onto the color wheel. +1/+1 counters are definitely green, however. If I read this card without seeing any colors, I would probably try and put it into black on the color wheel first, and then green afterwards.
(3/3) Balance: A 4/4 for 2G is rather strong, yet that actually feeds into the primary strength of green, its creatures. Besides, Leatherback Baloth was a perfectly fine card. If this card whiffs, it is only a 2/2 for 2G, which is almost unplayable anyway. It is a little bit rough, although certainly not unusual, to have a creature in your graveyard by turn 3 as well.
Basically, this card is fine in all formats, casual, and multiplayer.
Creativity -
(1/3) Uniqueness: Admittedly, ravenous is a custom keyword, but awarding full uniqueness points for that alone just seems at least a little bit silly. As it stands, this custom keyword reads a little bit like an inverse of scavenge mixed with devour. Cards that exile cards from graveyards as a cost has been done aplenty as well.
(2/3) Flavor: I like the name, but the flavor text is a little wordy for my liking as a Vorthos. Nonetheless, this new keyword does play somewhat nicely with the intent of this card's flavor.
Polish -
(0/3) Quality: This card has its templating all wrong, unfortunately, even as a text card. The rarity should be next to the card's types, the mana cost should be next to the name, and the power/toughness should be below the rules text and the flavor text rather than above (minus one and a half points). The name of the person credited with saying the quotation requires it's own line in the flavor text (minus half a point). There should also be no space between the dash and the person's name (minus half a point). Furthermore, reminder text for this new ravenous keyword is not correct; the word "creature" should come immediately after both instances of 'this' (minus half a point).
As a final note, the dash right next to the name of person being credited with the quotation should be a long dash '—' and not a short dash.
(2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge met!
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges met!
Total: 15.5/25
Final thought(s): Do not be discouraged! Ravenous looks like it is a keyword that has some sort of promise in the right sort of set, surely. I cannot wait to see more instances of it in your cards.
(2/3) Appeal: Tammy is basically uninterested in this card. Jenny loves unique cards like this full of intrigue. This card is pushed enough so that Spike would also definitely like it enough as well, even if the word 'random' is one of her least favorite words.
(2.5/3) Elegance: Random effects by their very nature are inelegant design, so unfortunately I am unable to award this card with full elegance points despite the fact that it has only ten words of actual rules text.
Development -
(2/3) Viability: This card looks very much like it should be blue, but the word 'random' is not blue at all. That word belongs primarily in red and secondarily in black. Neither of those aforementioned colors use investigate, however. The easiest way to re-balance this card would be to start by removing the word 'random'.
Twobrid mana is also rather weird to viably develop, yet I suppose this sort of card concept could effectively work at uncommon due to a lack of rules text.
(0/3) Balance: The problem with this card, balance-wise, is that Weave Fate is overpowered for only UU. Making this card an instant instead of a sorcery like Divination is a big balance problem, especially since both effects are equally playable. The fact that this card is random does not do enough to ensure this card's balance. I would cost this card at about 3U tentatively, but even then this is a weird card to try and balance properly.
Notably, investigating four times might actually be the stronger effect of the pair, since the clue tokens themselves could be used for shenanigans aplenty.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: Well, this is a weird submission to grade in regards to the uniqueness criterion, but I suppose it is a unique form of both card draw and investigate put together modally.
(2.5/3) Flavor: I am surprised this card name is not taken! It fits quite nicely here, and it is also flavorful. The flavor text is quite nice as well. However, as a Vorthos, the flavorful and mechanical disconnect of this card prevents me from awarding this card a perfect score. Searching for evidence is not at all random when done by a professional investigator; it is methodical and orderly.
Polish -
(2.5/3) Quality: The non-Latin unicode error is a real pain in hindsight. Nevertheless, a long dash '—' should have been used instead of two short dashes. Also, the reminder text for investigate is missing here (minus half a point). (To investigate, create a colorless Clue artifact token with "2, Sacrifice this artifact: Draw a card.")
(2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge met!
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges met!
Total: 17.5/25
Final thought: I would love to play around with a balanced version of this card without the word 'random', though.
Design -
(1.5/3) Appeal: This is definitely a Jenny card through and through. Tammy would prefer players to take their turns one after the other fairly. I doubt that Spike would ever want to play this card under typical circumstances, but this card truly demands an atypical deck, which is fair.
(1.5/3) Elegance: As seeing tournament-level play of Emrakul, the Promised End has demonstrated, gaining control of someone else's turn can be a big mess. The inherent complexity of the third line of rules text does not help out this card's elegance, either.
Development -
(2.5/3) Viability: Well, this card fits into black nicely on the color wheel. It also is the correct rarity as a mythic.
However, the effect of giving your opponent your turn may be a rules bend. Not enough to break in this day and age, but enough to be a little concerned about this card's viability without it being legendary.
(2.5/3) Balance: Believe it or not, this card actually does have somewhat of a precedent to balance around, if a rather old one, known as Eater of Days, kind of. They have the same converted mana cost, which helps. Clearly, this minion has the smaller body, even though it also has lifelink to effectively make up the loss of a turn.
Basically, you have to build your deck around this card, so I doubt that you can ever actually draft it in Limited, which is the main reason that I cannot give this submission a perfect score for this criterion. You really cannot put non-Demon cards into a deck with this, so your early game needs to be spell-based without a chance of backfiring back onto you. Doom Blade is a good start, but I leave it otherwise up to those Modern Johnnies and Jennies to find a way. This card is also a great way to really get to know your friends around a casual or multiplayer table, too.
This card works. Yes, the previous sentence was rather weird for me to type, admittedly.
Creativity -
(3/3) Uniqueness: A card like this has never been printed before. End of story.
(2.5/3) Flavor: The card does not feel cohesively synonymous for myself as a Vorthos. Basically, the mechanics feel a little too epic compared to this card's flavor. This card looks as though it should be a legendary creature, or is otherwise missing something. Otherwise, I really do quite like the name and the flavor text.
Polish -
(2/3) Quality: The words "you gain" should be replaced with the word 'take' (minus half a point). The term "non-demon" should have a capitalized D (minus half a point).
(2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge met!
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges met!
Total: 19.5/25
Final thought: This submission noodled my mind.
(3/3) Appeal: Johnny likes pretty much any card with X in its mana cost. Timmy loves this card because it allows him to play big creatures for a two mana premium from his library or search for more lands to play more creatures from his hand. Spike could use this card to tutor or ramp as well at a reasonable mana cost, depending on the situation. What an appealing card!
(2.5/3) Elegance: Tutoring for multiple cards is never going to be elegant, unfortunately, but this card otherwise earns a near-perfect score for this criterion in my opinion.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: Both of this card's modes fit just right into green on the color wheel. The rarity is also correct.
(2/3) Balance: This card's mana cost is a little pushed for being a modal spell. Individually, both effects would be fine at a cost of XGG, but together on a modal spell this could be troublesome. I would likely balance both effects by forcing them both to stay in color. The first effect does not search for a green creature specifically unlike Green Sun's Zenith and the second effect does not specifically search for Forests. Otherwise, this card would likely receive a perfect balance score from me. Perhaps this card is fine in practice, admittedly, and in all honesty it may very well just depend on the intended power level of the actual sets that this card could be slotted into.
This looks like a lot of fun in both casual and multiplayer, and also looks like a dream card for any green deck in a limited format (but this is of course fine for a rare card).
Creativity -
(1.5/3) Uniqueness: This card is basically Chord of Calling and Nissa's Pilgrimage stapled together as a modal spell. However, I would indeed call it an innovation with the worth of at least half credit for this criterion.
(3/3) Flavor: The flavor here is just fabulous! Fantastic!
Polish -
(2/3) Quality: It is a bit quirky that the first choice ends with ", then shuffle your library." while the second mode ends with "Then shuffle your library." (minus half a point, as that is just too silly to overlook realistically). There should be no space at all between the rules text and the flavor text (minus half a point).
(2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge met!
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges met!
Total: 21/25
Final thoughts: Using X to get around the first subchallenge's restriction was quite clever, and I was curious if anyone would catch that. Credit where credit is due! In my experience, uniqueness is a small price to pay for an otherwise basically perfect card.
(1.5/3) Appeal: I do not believe that Timmy is of the sort to like this card. Johnny, on the other hand, loves this card for its sheer potential involving lots of mana and lots of untapping. Spike also likes this card, but the fact that the ability is rather restrictive prevents her from necessarily loving it.
(2.5/3) Elegance: This card's effect is a little inelegant by its very nature, but this card is still clean enough to have a perfect score.
Development -
(2/3) Viability: Rare is the perfect rarity for this card. I am not sure if black is the right color for this card's effect, however. Changing control of permanents has historically been blue on the color wheel. As a result, I would say that this is almost a full-on color hemorrhage.
(1.5/3) Balance: This card has a niche outside of what may be its intent, which is taking control of artifact creatures, or other creatures with no colors in their mana cost. It is also indefinite, which is weird because it makes a lot more sense for the effect to last until this creature leaves the battlefield. I am curious as to how this card could warp limited, since if you are versus a black deck that has this card and your black deck does not have this card, you may very well just lose. This card also looks more fun in casual than it does in multiplayer for similar reasons.
Creativity -
(1.5/3) Uniqueness: Gaining control of permanents has been done quite a lot already, but this is actually a rather unique way of doing it. Even then, it is still a little bit like Willbreaker and other similar cards.
(2.5/3) Flavor: The flavor here is spot on, but it is still not enough to justify this card being black instead of blue.
Polish -
(2.5/3) Quality: There is an unnecessary space between the tap symbol and the colon (yes I noticed that, minus half a point).
(2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge met!
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges met!
Total: 18/25
Final thoughts: Thanks to this card, I actually learned today that 'corrupter' is the correct spelling of the word. How weird!
(2/3) Appeal: Timmy does not like paying large amounts of life as a cost. However, both Johnny and Spike do not mind as long as it lets the both of them do whatever they want, and this card does indeed let them both do just that.
(3/3) Elegance: Excellently elegant!
Development -
(2.5/3) Viability: Black is the perfect placement on this color wheel for this sorcery. However, this card could have perhaps been mythic rare instead of rare as it has two very potent effects in one, plus the mana cost is rather pushed. Nevertheless, rare is borderline okay in this case.
(2.5/3) Balance: The first effect is fine; Death was costed as far less, and even then, it was a split card (and it is also a really old card). The second effect is the more frightening of the two choices. As a rare, this would be a must-have if you were playing monoblack in limited. This looks a bit unfriendly for casual, but looks quite friendly for multiplayer by comparison. Admittedly, the strict mana cost and heavy loss of life makes me unsure as to whether or not this card would break anything in particular.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: Modal cards have been done before, of course, but not a modal tutor card. Even if half of this card is basically Death, the other half combined makes this card too unique to pass up on a high uniqueness score.
(3/3) Flavor: The flavor here is spot on. Wonderful work!
Polish -
(1/3) Quality: The bullet points were correct in the actual card, but I cannot quote it properly due to the infamous 'non-unicode Latin characters' error that I am currently experiencing. I had hoped that it would go away by the time that I had written up this judgment, but oh well.
However, there are still qualitative errors in this card, mainly in the flavor text. The name of the individual credited as saying the quotation requires it's own line in the flavor text (minus half a point). In addition, there should be no space between the dash and the individual's name (minus half a point). Lastly, the dash just to the left of the name of individual being credited with the quotation should be a long dash '—' and not a short dash (minus half a point); the short dash after "Choose one" should also be a long dash '—' (minus half a point).
(2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge met!
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges met!
Total: 19/25
Final thought: Personally, I would have gone with 'Abyssal Retrieval' for the name of this card, but that is just me as it is the same difference. For what it is worth, I do like what this card is trying to do.
(1.5/3) Appeal: This card is a little too small to appeal to Tammy. Spike very much likes this card, however. Jenny likes this card for how it can combo with red's famous power abilities like firebreathing, but this card itself is not really anything to build around.
(3/3) Elegance: This card reads a little weirdly, but that is more qualitative and does not detract from the elegance score here for this criterion.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: This card's effect definitely fits into red on the color wheel for its innate feeling of impulsiveness. First strike is also primarily red. Uncommon looks to be the right rarity for this card, as well.
(3/3) Balance: This card is correctly costed. This card may be a little infuriating to play against, but it is kind of like Lightning Strike attached to a 3/1 creature with first strike, which reads as 'balanced' to me. This card has quite the Limited appeal, but at uncommon and at this mana cost that is totally fine. This card would play well in casual I believe (just think of all the ways you can make sure your creatures do not have to attack); in multiplayer it would especially shine.
Creativity -
(1.5/3) Uniqueness: This card's enters the battlefield effect is something that I am surprised Wizards has not done more of in red, actually. It is similar to other mechanics like goad and provoke, yet is also neither of those.
(3/3) Flavor: The flavor is spot on. Sharply done!
Polish -
(0.5/3) Quality: This card could have fit in the first strike reminder text, but this is not strictly necessary. The apostrophe in 'it's' should be nixed (minus half a point); the very same goes for the comma between turn and if as well (minus half a point). The phrase 'must attack' should simply be the word "attacks" as well (minus half a point). The dash between "Creature" and "Devil" in the type line should be by itself with single spaces rather than serving as a hyphen to connect both words (minus half a point). The power and toughness of the creature should not be bolded (minus half a point).
(2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge met!
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges met!
Total: 19.5/25
Final thought(s): This card's qualitative errors gave me a bit of a headache, to be honest. Please do try for a perfect quality score during the next round!
thenoodler - 19.5
Your BFF - 19.5
void_nothing - 19
BrainPo - 18.5
Venser_FR - 18
mederer - 17.5
Legend - 15.5
Koopa - 15
If your username has been bolded here, congratulations are in order — you have qualified for Round 2 of the September MCC! Best of luck!
If your username has not been bolded here, there is always next month. Thank you for participating; best of luck next month!
(3/3) Appeal: Timmy might like the ramp. Spike likes the extra cards. There's been a history of players being drawn to rituals.
(2/3) Elegance: These are two very disconnected effects. Both resources on opposing ends of the spectrum. It's weird how you discard your hand, expecting to draw in return, but then you just exile the top cards of your deck.
Other than that the effects are fairly simple and seem to belong into the same deck.
Development -
(2/3) Viability: Devoid has been recieved rather poorly, I question your decision to include it on the card. I see nothing red isn't supposed to do and Mythic is probably the right slot for massive 'impulsive' card draw.
(1/3) Balance: This looks like it's problematic when included in a storm deck. It either ramps for 3, which not even Seething Song did or it get's you 7 new cards to play. That's insane. This can't be right.
The cards vanish after a turn and the mana is colorless, so there's that. But playing a Bane of Bala Ged on turn 4 sounds terrifying. Myr Battlesphere also packs quite the punch.
Creativity -
(3/3) Uniqueness: There's been some rituals before, but few added that much colorless mana. Also a one-sided Wheel of Fortune with the new red card draw is intriguing. Combining the two sought-after resources in Magic on a modal spell is daring and original.
(2/3) Flavor: Kozilek has some history with red alignment. Not sure I get the flavor text. What exactly is Zendikar displaying? Impulsive brainstorming? I don't feel like this has much to do with Zendikar itself at all. The name's fair.
Polish -
(2.5/3) Quality: Choose doesn't use ':', it's always a '-'
(2/2) Main Challenge: Monocolored Sorcery alright. If I felt like Devoid would actually make a card colorless, I should make you fail here, but I don't, so your passing is a protest of mine against Devoid.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Costs 4 and is modal.
Total: 19.5/25
(2/3) Appeal: Spike. Gotta be Spike. Who else would like raw hard to block damage output to win? Johnny might try to do something with the tokens to maximize the power of this, but it's not very challenging and already plays well enough on its own.
(3/3) Elegance: It's simple enough I'd say. Just making a bunch of tokens, nothing hard to grasp here, nothing confusing.
Development -
(1/3) Viability: So, these short-lived tokens fit very well with red and phoenixes are also in red, but what I have trouble with here is seeing how this is a phoenix at all.
People will expect a phoenix card to have some kind of rebirth mechanic. All of them do. You can't make a phoenix without one, that was a really poor choice. Rare is fine though.
(3/3) Balance: A rather mediocre flyer that's got a sort of player-only fireball attached. I can see this is burn decks, as it's quite efficient at getting damage in. Comboing it with anthem effects sounds fun. I like it, even if it's not on the strong side.
Creativity -
(1.5/3) Uniqueness: Pretty close to Firecat Blitz, put making it a repeatable effect and giving them flying is neat.
(2.5/3) Flavor: Wisps as tiny flying things. I guess I get it. The flavortext is a bit bumpy, but cute. I don't think leaving out articles like that passes as poetry.
Polish -
(2.5/3) Quality: Exile them. Not exile those.
(2/2) Main Challenge: Just red.
(2/2) Subchallenges: 3 =< 4. I can see a ':'
Total: 19.5/25
(1.5/3) Appeal: Spike. This is so Spike. It's also great to make Johnny really really sad. Probably Timmy as well. Uses up all his mana just to get their stuff countered. Ouch.
(2/3) Elegance: Pretty convoluted way to forbid a player to counter a card. But other than that it makes a whole lot of sense.
Development -
(1.5/3) Viability: Oh boy, where do I begin? So you're making a Meddling Mage. Okay, maybe you don't need the white part, as that's mostly on the naming. But to achieve a very similar effect you make the player search the entire deck.
That takes time. Which is something R&D is trying to avoid these days. Then the opponent goes to fetch a land, picks up their decklist and starts checking. Might as well reveal the card at that point, right? Awkward design.
(1/3) Balance: Meddling Mage has always been a very viable card. You gave it flying, made it harder to remove, easier cost requirements, gave it a veeeery relevant creature type and made the effect much stronger.
The opponent may even fall into the trap of casting the card, losing mana in the process. Then they might even tutor for the card first, losing the tutor as well. I'd say you've overdone it here.
Creativity -
(3/3) Uniqueness: It IS a very unique way of doing this kind of effect, so that's nice.
(2/3) Flavor: The name is a bit bland. There's lots of thiefing faeries out there, what makes this one special? The flavor text is cute.
Polish -
(1.5/3) Quality: Flavor text belong it italics. (-0.5)
player's library (-0.5)
player casts (-0.5)
(2/2) Main Challenge: Mono blue.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Costs less than 4 and has that triggered ability.
Total: 16.5/25
(2.5/3) Appeal: Spike might like the flexible removal. Timmy could be swayed by getting 5/5s out of his lesser creatures.
(3/3) Elegance: I like the symmetry of the effects. The effects are simple enough and well established. Neat.
Development -
(2/3) Viability: Rare seems like a good fit. Turning creatures into 1/1 is also well in blue's color pie. Turning them into 5/5s not so much. That's a bit big for blue. Ensoul Artifact already felt rather off.
(2.5/3) Balance: A limited allstar. Great for casual. Probably not strong enough for constructed. It does make for some really complex board states.
Creativity -
(2.5/3) Uniqueness: Sure, Polymorphism is a thing that happens occasionally, but not so much repeatedly on a creature and that symmetric option to turn something big is a nice touch.
(1.5/3) Flavor: It's quite some text on the card already, but a little single line of flavortext would have been nice. What I absolutely can not picture is a Vedalken turning people into frogs.
Polymorphists strike me as the quirky funny guys among mages. Just look at Polymorphist's Jest. Most Vedalken don't even know how to smile. But brute force by employing Lizards? Absolutely not.
The card does have that master polymorphist vibe though and seems to make a lot of sense.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Looks good.
(2/2) Main Challenge: Mono blue.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Cheap and active.
Total: 21/25
(3/3) Appeal: So, Spike likes their toolboxes. Timmy actually enjoys big effects, not just big creatures.
(2/3) Elegance: So, Escalate together with "You may choose the same mode more than once." is a little bit confusing. It's kind of like an X spell, but not really. In any case it's X+1.
Other than that the effects are rather simple.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: All effects are well in white and amassing tokens like that should be at rare.
(3/3) Balance: So, this can work very well as a "XW: you get X 1/1 tokens." According to Secure the Wastes that's even fine when done at instant speed.
Having the option to remove enchantments or escape impending doom by gaining life seems like a nice option. It seems a bit pushed, but adding another mana wouldn't do it any good.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: The options themselves are rather bland, but that's a really complex modal spell, the likes we haven't seen before.
(2/3) Flavor: So, no flavor text. But I like Crescendo for escalate spells and while there's little glorious about 1/1s, enchantment removal and gaining life, doing them in such big amounts does have some hint of glory about it.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Looks good.
(2/2) Main Challenge: Mono white.
(2/2) Subchallenges: CMC of 2 and quite modal.
Total: 22/25
When I first judged the card I missed the part with getting to choose the same mode more than once.
So if you'd like, you may read through my mental breakdown as I come to believe that one of the most experienced designers on here made one of the worst cards I've ever seen:
(1/3) Appeal: So, who enjoys 2 mana enchantment removal with the occasional 1 mana 1/1 dude attached? Maaaaybe Spike. Having sideboard tools against powerful enchantments in limited formats is nice to have.
But as far as thoes go, this has to be the worst option I've seen in a while. I guess it's still better than Erase.
(2/3) Elegance: To me, there really isn't much of a connection between the three effects. Compared to a thing of beauty like Savage Alliance it falls rather flat. The effects are simple one-liners though, so it's easy on the mind.
Development -
(1.5/3) Viability: Everything well in white. Lifegain, Enchantment removal and single 1/1 creating isn't something that requires rare at all. In fact, you hardly ever see it there. Weird spot for this.
(1/3) Balance: Alright, having options is supposed to cost mana. But making Erase cost twice as much? 3 mana for a 1/1 than removes an enchantment? An entire mana for 2 life? This card is just going to get tossed aside, never to be looked at again.
Creativity -
(1/3) Uniqueness: None of the effects are new. Nothing new comes from combining them. I guess there's not many effects with a much similar effect out there.
(1/3) Flavor: No flavor text makes this hard on me. Crescendo seems like a good name for an escalate spell, yet I fail to see anything glorious about these effects.
Polish -
(X/3) Quality: And this was the point when I discovered "You may choose the same mode more than once"...
(X/2) Main Challenge:
(X/2) Subchallenges:
Total: X/25
(3/3) Appeal: Looks like a Spike card to me, getting lots and lots of value out of their cards. It does make for some interesting deck building though, so Johnny could be interested.
(1/3) Elegance: Pretty simple. Yet a major flaw is putting counters on himself. They'll always be 2 counters. Making him a 3/4 would have a very similar effect, unless the set has a heavy cares-about-counters theme.
I don't think the added board complexity is worth it.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: Pretty sure this could be done in a lot of colors, but putting it into white with all those tiny creatures makes sense. It's a nice build-around-me uncommon.
(1.5/3) Balance: 4 mana for 3/4 is already a good deal, but then that effect is pretty insane. If the opponent can't remove it the following turn it's just going to spiral out of control. Even one white symbol is enough to push some creatures over the edge.
Then it doesn't even help removing him a bit later, as the damage is done. So this is a bit pushed, especially for limited. 3/3 would have been enough entirely.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: Light from Within plays into a similar design space, but making it a lord that cares about cards getting played is neat.
(3/3) Flavor: The name is fair, the flavor text is pretty neat. Good job on those.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Looks good.
(2/2) Main Challenge: Mono white.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Triggering and 4 mana.
Total: 20.5/25
(2/3) Appeal: Spike will very much enjoy this. Timmy gets a bit sad that he can't attack. Johnny is sad about losing abilities.
(2/3) Elegance: The wording is a bit awkward, having to exlude himself. It's also a bit much text for an effect that's very similar to just exiling the creature.
Last but not least there's a memory issue here.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: Naming and then sort of detaining cards is very white. Answers that can be answered even more so. Rare is a good fit.
(3/3) Balance: Pretty close to Meddling Mage in some regard. A powerful card, but easy to answer. I think this sits at a great spot.
Creativity -
(3/3) Uniqueness: I believe this is where your design shines. Sure, it's close to just exiling the creature, but what if there's two? What if it's not even on the field yet and you want to prevent any etb trigger?
It's a very neat way to explore old design space with a new twist.
(2.5/3) Flavor: No idea what a Hieromancer actually is, but judging by the cards that exist your card is just that. The flavortext is a bit bumpy, but fits well with 'naming' a creature, as it's bound by words.
Polish -
(2.5/3) Quality: lose
s(2/2) Main Challenge: Mono white.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Cheap and triggering on etb.
Total: 22/25
(2.5/3) Appeal: Timmy really isn't into that kind of Shenanigans. Playing spells isn't clever enough for Johnny. That leaves us with Spike, luckily they love drawing cards and small, yet efficient creatures.
(3/3) Elegance: Rather simple, thus elegant.
Development -
(2/3) Viability: Well in blue and at the level this is probably a good idea to put it at rare. Having a combat damage clause on a creature with 0 power is just asking for trouble. Newer players are often confused by the fact that 0 damage isn't actually damage.
(2.5/3) Balance: So, play removal on curve with this guy and go draw. Except it won't work on the curve, because of the cost. This one is tricky. Probably best combined with cheap burn.
The 1 mana cost for the drawing really weakens this guy to a point where he might not even see play. But without, he'd easily spiral out of control. So this is probably at a fairly okay spot.
Creativity -
(3/3) Uniqueness: I actually made something very similiar, did that inspire you, I wonder? Anyways, let's only compare to real cards and I like that combination of 0 power with prowess and a combat damage trigger.
It's clever. Brilliant even. Only the smartest of minds will ever... I should probably stop here.
(3/3) Flavor: A cool name that is greatly enhanced by the flavor text. Very fitting for the card as well.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: What's with all the line breaks? Makes it relly hard to read.
(2/2) Main Challenge: Mono blue.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Triggered and cheap.
Total: 23/25
Forestguy 19.5
Freyleyes 16.5
netn10 21
RaikouRider 22
Snow Creature - Penguin 20.5
Tesco(black)lotus 22
Vertain 23
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
Design -
(2.5/3) Appeal: Johnny loves the idea of being able to cast all of his creature cards from the graveyard. This is costed so that Spike would like it too. This isn’t a big enough body for Timmy to care about, but even he likes the idea of reanimating all his fatties.
(1.5/3) Elegance: This card is pretty wordy, but is still pretty clear. Though I do worry that new players will be confused about whether or not the artifact’s ability would still work if Jinshu wasn’t on the battlefield (which it wouldn’t with the way it’s worded). You could make it so that the artifact itself has that ability, which would cut down on the wording and help with the grokability, but the card would be even more powerful that way.
Development -
(2/3) Viability: Hmmm, this card’s reanimation ability seems more at home in black (or B/W), but I suppose white isn’t really wrong. Mythic feels right for such a powerful effect, and this is powerful enough to warrant legendary status. Everything seems to fit within the rules of Magic.
(0.5/3) Balance: This card is super powerful. It seems like you tried to balance it by making the reanimation ability susceptible to both creature and artifact removal, but it still seems too powerful to me. Haakon, Stromgald Scourge is the closest card I can think of, and that has two downsides tacked on (one pretty major one), costs 2 black, and only affects Knights. This card with an Ornithopter and a Viscera Seer allows you to dig through your entire library by the third turn if everything falls right. I’m afraid the card might be too powerful for any format.
Creativity -
(2.5/3) Uniqueness: I can’t think of anything that allows you cast creature cards from your graveyard like this can, and Phylactery Lich is the only thing I can think of that relies on a permanent that the card itself creates, so I’d say the card is certainly unique. It doesn’t feel super fresh to me though, which is why it’s not a 3 here.
(2.5/3) Flavor: The flavor here seems fine, although it’s bit hard to judge not knowing the story behind this at all. According to Wikipedia, The Cintamani Stone is supposed to be a symbol of prosperity in both the Buddhist and Hindu religions. I’m not sure why it’s returning creatures from the graveyard. But I’m not an expert on religion, and I only did some minor research into it, so I’ll assume you know what you’re talking about. I would guess this card is referring to reincarnation for those that have led a passive and righteous life.
Polish -
(2/3) Quality: Flavor text attribute should be on a second line. (-0.5) Also for the attribute, there should be no space between the dash and the person's name. (-0.5)
(2/2) Main Challenge: Good.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Spot on.
Total: 17.5/25
Design -
(2/3) Appeal: Spike sees this as pure value. Johnny might try to have some fun returning his own creatures. Timmy isn’t too excited.
(3/3) Elegance: Very easy to understand.
Development -
(2/3) Viability: It’s certainly blue, but this would be a very pushed uncommon, considering Harbinger of the Tides is a rare. I suppose it’s possible it could be an UC, but it would be safer at rare.
(2.5/3) Balance: I think this card is pretty well balanced for all formats, but is borderline in limited at UC. I could see this seeing some play in standard as there is a lot value to be had. This could get a look at some point in Modern, especially if Faeries ever became a thing. I’m not sure it would see play in any of the eternal formats.
Creativity -
(2.5/3) Uniqueness: As far as know, there has never been a card that affects each creature that entered the battlefield this turn in a negative way before. The closest thing I can think of is Oran-Rief, the Vastwood, but that’s an entirely different thing. The card seems like a nice fresh take on some established ideas.
(2/3) Flavor: I’m not really a huge fan of the word Stuttershift, nor am I crazy about the flavor text, but both of those may just be personal opinions.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Looks great!
(2/2) Main Challenge: Yup.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Good.
Total: 21/25
Design -
(1/3) Appeal: Timmy doesn’t care. Spike might take this in limited, but isn’t too excited by it. Johnny might be able to come up with something interesting to do, but also isn’t super-jazzed.
(3/3) Elegance: Simple and easy to understand. Everything fits together nicely.
Development -
(1.5/3) Viability: Color is right, and it breaks no rules, but Merfolk Thaumaturgist says this could be an uncommon (a common if it weren’t for the 4 toughness). I understand that it can be activated more than once per turn, but is a pretty steep mana sink for this effect, especially for a rare.
(2.5/3) Balance: Again, this is pretty low on the power level scale outside of an environment filled with 0/* creatures. It would probably see some play in limited, but it wouldn’t really make an impact anywhere else. Still, Merfolk Thaumaturgist says you got the numbers about right.
Creativity -
(0.5/3) Uniqueness: Again, Merfolk Thaumaturgist.
(3/3) Flavor: The flavor is quite good.
Polish -
(2/3) Quality: The flavor text should be in quotes as it appears as though it is being said by the Master himself. (-0.5) The flavor text should come between the rules text and the P/T. (-0.5)
(2/2) Main Challenge: Got it.
(2/2) Subchallenges: All good.
Total: 17.5/25
Design -
(2.5/3) Appeal: Timmy loves a big cheap beater. So does Spike, although he wishes it weren’t legendary. Johnny might like to make a deck that removes or uses the -1/-1 counters.
(2/3) Elegance: The card is easy enough to understand, but I feel like people would usually opt for the -1/-1 counter unless they have a lot of extra lands or copies of Lithen in hand. The exiling of the card just doesn’t seem to fit right to me.
Development -
(2/3) Viability: Everything is on color, and the rarity seems right, but I’m just not sure this seems very legendary to me from a power level standpoint. It doesn’t break any rules.
(2.5/3) Balance: I don’t see this creating a problem in any formats. It would get picked in limited, and might see some play in standard, particularly if the environment allowed you to benefit from the -1/-1 counters some way. I’m not sure this would have much impact anywhere else. Again, I’m not sure the drawback of being legendary is really needed here. I do find it interesting that you could just let this build counters, then play a new one and sac the old one.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: This card is basically a reverse Clockwork creature with another option added on. Still, I’m not aware of anything quite like it.
(2.5/3) Flavor: The flavor seems pretty good to me. The -1/-1 counters line up nicely with the flavor text.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Excellent.
(2/2) Main Challenge: Indeed.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Nailed it.
Total: 20.5/25
Design -
(1.5/3) Appeal: Spike likes the utility, but wishes it wasn’t double red. It’s a bit straight forward for Johnny. Timmy prefers his burn spells to the face.
(3/3) Elegance: Direct and simple. Very good.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: Everything looks spot on to me.
(3/3) Balance: I see no problems here. I might want to try this at even. This would see play in limited, and possibly standard, depending on how many artifacts are around. I don’t see this making a big splash anywhere else.
Creativity -
(1/3) Uniqueness: These two choices have been on the same card before, even if the numbers were different. Ex. Fiery Confluence, Kolaghan’s Command.
(3/3) Flavor: Very good here. I could totally see that name and flavor text on a card.
Polish -
(2/3) Quality: Flavor text attribute should be on a separate line. (-0.5) Also, there should be no space between the dash and the person's name in the flavor text attribute. (-0.5)
(2/2) Main Challenge: You got it.
(2/2) Subchallenges: A+
Total: 20.5/25
Design -
(2/3) Appeal: Spike likes a beater that can act as repeatable removal. Johnny might want to figure out how to keep this around to fight another day. Timmy doesn’t want to keep spending mana to make his creature big.
(3/3) Elegance: Very easy to understand. Everything seems good here.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: Red is good, and this doesn’t break any rules. It almost seems borderline rare, but UC is probably right. I’m not sure Wizards would print a card with “Drunken” in the name, but I won’t deduct any points ‘cause that seems stupid.
(2.5/3) Balance: I worry a bit about something that can act as repeated removal, but using Spikeshot Goblin as a comparison, this seems fine. It would see play in limited, but I’m not so sure about standard, unless there was a viable burn deck that needed another card. I don’t see this getting played anywhere else.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: Although there is nothing really new here on its own, the combination of abilities seems new and fresh.
(1/3) Flavor: No flavor text? It could certainly fit some. Again, I’m not sure the name would fly at Wizards, but I like it personally.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Another error free entry. Great!
(2/2) Main Challenge: Yes.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Check.
Total: 20.5/25
Design -
(1.5/3) Appeal: Spike likes a 3/5 vigilant flyer in limited. Timmy does too, but might be turned off by the word “defender”. Johnny doesn’t care.
(1.5/3) Elegance: This is easy to understand, and the reminder text helps a lot here. Pain could benefit from some sort of marker to help with tracking. Also, a formatting error makes this a bit more confusing than it should be. It should say “When you lose life…” not “Whenever you lose life..” Your wording makes it seem like it should be an “until end of turn” effect, even though it is a one-time effect that turns on another effect. It makes me question if I even know exactly how pain works. I’ll mention this again later, in quality.
Development -
(2/3) Viability: White seems good, and the rarity is ok, but I just can’t see pain being a thing, especially without a marker of some sort. There just isn’t enough design space, and the idea doesn’t seem that exciting. It would help if it was more like renown or monstrosity. Something like “When you lose life, if this isn’t in pain, put a pain counter on it. It is in pain.” Then you could make cards that say “As long as this creature is in pain, <effect>.” Or “Creatures you control that are in pain get <ability>.”
(2/3) Balance: There is nothing broken about this card. It would be a bomb in limited, but I can’t see it being played anywhere else.
Creativity -
(1.5/3) Uniqueness: Pain is new, but that’s about it.
(0.5/3) Flavor: Retaliatory Griffin is a little too close to Retaliator Griffin for me. Also, there’s no flavor text even though there is plenty of room.
Polish -
(2/3) Quality: “Whenever you lose life…” should be “When you lose life..”. See elegance for more detail. (-1)
(2/2) Main Challenge: Good
(2/2) Subchallenges: Ditto.
Total: 15/25
Design -
(2/3) Appeal: This has enough power potential for Spike to take a look, even with the chaos downside. Some Johnnies seem to love coin flip nonsense. Timmy isn’t super excited.
(2.5/3) Elegance: It’s a bit wordy, but pretty easily understood.
Development -
(2/3) Viability: Rare seems right, but red doesn’t usually deal damage specifically to flyers. That’s green’s job. Red usually does damage specifically to nonflyers. See Earthquake for example. The card doesn’t break any rules.
(2/3) Balance: Hmmm, this is tough. This is really strong under the right conditions, possibly too strong, but if you don’t hit your flips, it’s just not that great. Still, it would see play in draft, and also table-top coin flip decks (yes that’s a thing). It might even get a look in Standard since the upside is so high. Even if only two modes are turned on, the card is pretty strong.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: I haven’t seen a modal coin flip card, even if each effect isn’t groundbreaking in itself.
(1/3) Flavor: No room for flavor text. The name is a bit generic, and I’m not sure how much I like it, but it is passable.
Polish -
(2.5/3) Quality: The first line of the rules text is wrong. Seeing as how there is no exact precedent for the ability, I'm only deducting a half point for this. I think it should be more like this….“Flip two coins. Choose one, then choose another one for each coin flip you won —“ or maybe "Flip two coins. Choose one plus up to one for each coin flip you won —" (-0.5)
(2/2) Main Challenge: No doubt!
(2/2) Subchallenges: Word!
Total: 18/25
Marco – 20.5
Voxzorz – 20.5
Groovelord – 20.5
DaAwesomeCheeto – 18
Clockwork Gamer – 17.5
Folza – 17.5
Amuzet – 15
Edit - Fixed math errors in Groovelord and Amuzet's scores. Thanks bravelion.