MTG Salvation

Creativity: That's just boring. It's Cancel, with cycling. 1/5
Balance: It's pretty fair. Cancel isn't overpowered, so adding a bit of utility to it is fine. 4/5
Flavor: I get that it's the quintessential blue card, but you can come up with a better name than that. Plus, no flavor text on a card that has plenty of room for it; on cards like this, that's where most of the flavor comes from. 1/5
Total: 6/15

Creativity: First of all, this has been done before, but only once. The thing is, this just isn't very new and exciting. Flashback plus cycling is an interesting interaction, but that's all you did with the card. 2/5
Balance: This card is extremely overpowered. I honestly think it is better than Counterspell and might even see heavy play in Legacy, since it's two counterpspells for one. Not only that, it has cycling for very cheap too in case you have too many counters in your hand...but you can still use it afterward to counter a spell! Relatively cheap cards with tons of utility are super good. This is the most broken card of this round, and there are other broken cards too. 1/5
Flavor: The name is god and fits, but as with wilsonbiggs's card, no flavor text on a card that could easily fit it. I understand cards like this don't lend themselves to great flavor, but some of my favorite flavor text has been on counters, and you could have at least put in that effort to get a few more points. 2/5
Total: 5/15

Creativity: Nice combination of abilities. My lone issue is that it feels like you played mix-and-match with a bunch of abilities (two with interesting synergy), but nothing itself is completely original. 4/5
Balance: This is a tough one. In limited, this is certainly amazing since it's almost impossible to get rid of permanently, but it's a rare so it's ok for it to be a bomb. In constructed, it seems slow and expensive--even with an enabler to discard it so you can just cast it on turn four, it's usually just a 3/2 that keeps coming back. I suspect it might be a junk rare, but a fun one that would be great in casual. 4/5
Flavor: The flavor all makes sense with the name, but...the name is a bit underwhelming. And no flavor text. On this card there might not be room for it, so that's not too terrible. All in all, solid flavor, but nothing special. 3/5
Total: 11/15

Creativity: Pretty good, and it makes for interesting play decisions when you have two in hand. Do you cycle one and then get two creatures for one card? Or do you play one and wait for it to die, and then get it back? 4/5
Balance: Fair, although on the weak side--good in limited if you can get a few, probably unplayable in constructed. I think it would probably be fine at 1WW, and that would maybe even make it constructed playable in the right decks. 3/5
Flavor: Very good flavor between the name, vigilance, and ability, but yet again no flavor text! This card really really wants flavor text; it has strong flavor as it is, and adding flavor text would really tie everything together. 4/5
Total: 11/15

Creativity: Feels a lot like a black Eternal Dragon. As a matter of fact, it pretty much is a black Eternal Dragon. Credit for making the switch, but not completely original. 3/5
Balance: I think this card is underpowered. You would pretty much never actually want to cast it, since it's a 3/3 flyer for 5, which isn't very good even when it can keep coming back, especially with Wizards pushing the power level of creatures these days. And the repetitive swampcycling is good, but expensive, and requires creatures to die. Now if you pushed it to something like a 4/4 or even 5/4 flyer or gave it some other in-play abilities, that would be something different, but as is it doesn't seem too great. 2/5
Flavor: Finally some flavor text! The card fits together well ,although I'm not sure Demon is the best creature type for him. The flavor text is very bland, but it's still there. Good job on this overall. 4/5
Total: 9/15

Creativity: The Chandra's Phoenix ability, but with cycling. The interaction between the two is cool though, and gives an entirely new element to the card. 4/5
Balance: Well, in terms of being a beater it's pretty much strictly worse than the Phoenix. The interesting part here is the cycling. It feels right that the cycling cost is so expensive; otherwise this essentially makes every spell in a burn deck a cantrip, which would be ridiculous. This still might be great at costing 5 to cycle since it gives burn a lot of reach late game. I'd be very interested in seeing if it were played competitively. Good job. 4/5
Flavor: Great name. Works perfectly with the abilities. And no flavor text. Come on, there's even tons of room on the card! This is the second card where even half decent flavor text would have earned a 5. 4/5
Total: 12/15

Creativity: Cool card. Nothing groundbreaking, but nice overall. And I like the "can't block" as an elegant solution to prevent you from chump blocking and getting cards. 4/5
Balance: First, I'm assuming that you meant whenever it enters the graveyard from anywhere (which I think is safe because the new template for from play is "dies" now). So that being said...you do realize this card is essentially 2UU Instant, draw three, this cant be countered, right? Because every monoblue control player (and I count myself among those) would absolutely love this card. Everyone else (including Wizards, who have been trying to get rid of any decent instant speed draw) not so much. 1/5
Flavor: Good name, fits with the abilities. And no flavor text. Seriously, why is nobody including flavor text on these cards? 3/5
Total: 8/15

Creativity: Very original. I can see lots of interesting stuff happening with this. 5/5
Balance: Although lots of interesting things can happen with this, I'm having trouble seeing much good happening. It goes to the top, not your hand, so there's no card advantage there; if you discard something to an opponent's spell, for example, you get this as your next card and then...play it? It's a 1/1 with no abilities for 2. Cycle it? You just paid mana for a card that you would have drawn if this weren't in the way. You might have had something in mind when you designed this, but from what I can see this card is just terrible. 1/5
Flavor: I love the Kamigawa flavor, and the name and ability match perfectly, but you're like the fifth or sixth person with no flavor text on a card that needs it. The flavor here is already extremely strong, and flavor text would have made this a definite 5. 4/5
Total: 10/15

Creativity: Nothing particularly original here; the [CARD=Decree of Pain]Decree ability was done before, and not exactly on old, esoteric cards either. And the card itself (minus the cycling) has been done too. 2/5
Balance: The main card is kind of pushing the curve a bit; compare to Flame Wave. So I would say it's a bit overpowered there. The cycling is also really good; it's costed competitively, and will usually be three for destroying a creature and drawing a card. If the cycling ability said creature or player, I'd say it's much too powerful; as is, I still think it's pushing it. 3/5
Flavor: The flavor here seems a bit disjointed and generic. Yes, I get the raging flames--good name for a burn spell, by the way--but the flavor text seems like it feels like it should be on a creature, probably an elemental. And the flavor text also isn't so great, it doesn't read nicely and confused me the first time I read it. 3/5
Total: 8/15

Creativity: Very cool. This wants to be in a cycling deck, and it would be amazing in one too. 4/5
Balance: So, first off there's a major templating issue, which I'll cover in this section. The card's ability says "Whenever ~ or another card is cycled, put two +1/+1 counters on target creature." So I'm assuming that means when you cycle this card, you get to put the counters on something. But, whenever you cycle something else, for the ability to work this needs to be in play, right? Because abilities on cards only work when the card is in play, unless specifically stated otherwise. So, this needs to be split into two abilities; one for when you cycle this card, and one for when you cycle another card.
Having said that, it's the first ability that's a problem. I think that almost any deck that plays creatures would auto-include a playset of 1, Instant, put two +1/+1 counters on target creature and draw a card. And it can't be countered. There was another card in this round with a similar problem, which I guess people tend to gloss over when designing card with abilities when cycled--you need to cost it higher than a normal spell, since it's an uncounterable cantrip. This isn't as egregious as the other one, but I still think it's too powerful. IF you made the cycling cost even 2, this would be much fairer. 2/5
Flavor: Why is this a hellblood scythe? That makes no sense at all with the abilities; not only that, the name seems very red, and playing around with cycling does not seems like red's thing to do. Other than the name, there nothing to base the flavor off of without art, so the card is essentially flavorless. 1/5
Total: 7/15

Artificer Andy!