Design -
(1.5/3) Appeal: Timmy likes group-hug and control-change effects, Johnny appreciates the sheer number of interactions but doesn’t like how out of his hands the entire ability is, Spike loathes the idea that he has to get two people’s approval to use an ability even in Un-land.
(1/3) Elegance: There’s a lot here that’s inelegant even if it’s a spinoff of the elegant exchange-control concept. Carrying around multiple toys, having to solicit at least two opinions from people outside the game, and using the toy as a token for no real reason, while also giving it the Toy type, and giving that same type to the stolen creature, while not also making the creature an artifact. Yeesh.
Development -
(2.5/3) Viability: Blue is correct; this definitely feels much more like a rare than a mythic, though.
(2.5/3) Balance: If anything this is a card that’s too weak, due to the complete reliance on outside opinions for using it.
Creativity -
(2.5/3) Uniqueness: The use of a physical toy is a pretty unique version of the very old exchange-control effect.
(2/3) Flavor: Why doesn’t the character have a “real” name? Also, the flavor is not so much voluntary sharing as it is forcing a trade of toys.
Design -
(1/3) Appeal: This is almost a pure Johnny card. Effect isn’t big enough for Timmy, nor does it provide nearly enough value for Spike. This is a jank card meant to fuel wacky combos - as something like a 3/2 it’d be a different story.
(2.5/3) Elegance: Why it can only trigger off a creature assembling and not an assembly that the player technically does themselves, I don’t know.
Development -
(2.5/3) Viability: While I certainly wish this were common, and/or had the Relentless Rats ability, due to its self-referential tutoring, uncommon is right for the level of complexity. And, of course, it had to be an artifact.
(2.5/3) Balance: Just about as inoffensive as a card could be, really. Maybe too safe of a design.
Creativity -
(2.5/3) Uniqueness: Reminds me of another famous bird.
(3/3) Flavor: I remember having to make origami cranes for my classmates as an allegedly fun holiday project in elementary school.
Design -
(1.5/3) Appeal: Timmy likes the chaos, Johnny would like to use artifact-blowing-up triggers and token creation a lot more if he could actually control how it worked, Spike hates randomness.
(2/3) Elegance: Having to determine a random artifact to sacrifice is a big strike against this card’s elegance.
Development -
(2/3) Viability: With the sheer complexity of this card making random choices and creating noncreature tokens, I think it has to be rare. Colors are correct though.
(3/3) Balance: Seems fine, given how hard it is to get the ideal result all the time.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: Pretty clearly channeling Goblin Test Pilot, and the Toy token is vaguely like a Clue.
(3/3) Flavor: All seems spot-on, with a manic Goblin rebuilding things at random.
Polish -
(1.5/3) Quality: “Choose a random artifact on the battlefield” should be “Choose an artifact at random,” the Toy token needs to be specified as colorless, and the flavor text has no quotation marks.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Done.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Completed.
Total: 19/25
Design -
(2/3) Appeal: Timmy’s into the reward of all those +1/+1 counters. Johnny’s into the stuff you have to do to get there. Spike sees a practically do-nothing card.
(1.5/3) Elegance: This is a card with a lot of moving parts, to put it mildly. Not helping on the elegance front is the fact that thanks to the Toy token’s blocking restriction, you’ll most likely never get the mass pump effect without significant setup (pumping your own toy and forcing your opponent’s to attack into it).
Development -
(2.5/3) Viability: Mythic feels off here - this should be rare imho. Artifact is obviously right.
(3/3) Balance: As a card that requires a combo to do much of anything and that has a symmetrical effect, there’s nothing concerning about the balance.
Creativity -
(3/3) Uniqueness: Definitely innovative stuff, in various ways.
(2.5/3) Flavor: So the Toys battle, tear each other apart, and the remains of the losers somehow enhance even non-Toy creatures?
Polish -
(2.5/3) Quality: One comma too many in the last ability.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Good.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both done.
Total: 21/25
Design -
(2/3) Appeal: A Timmy (10 damage) and Johnny (control-change/counter manipulation) card through and through that doesn’t impress Spike.
(2.5/3) Elegance: Using a static rather than a triggered ability to make the explosion happen is unusual but I get why it was done.
Development -
(2/3) Viability: I don’t think this effect should be uncommon - everything about it feels like a (bad) rare. Artifact is obviously appropriate though.
(2.5/3) Balance: Considering that under non-combo circumstances, this card takes ten turns to deal 10 damage, it’s pretty underpowered.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: Definitely part of a long tradition of similar cards, most of which have “Jinxed” in the name.
(3/3) Flavor: Am I supposed to imagine it’s literally made out of potato? Regardless, very suitable Un-flavor.
Polish -
(1.5/3) Quality: Gnome is a creature type, so using Construct here isn’t appropriate. Flavor text is missing quotation marks.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Done.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Fulfilled.
Total: 19.5/25
Design -
(2.5/3) Appeal: Timmy likes a card that can destroy stuff a lot, Johnny likes a cheap potential combo piece with counter and control-change interactions, and Spike loves it in theory but is definitely paranoid about this card coming back to bite him in the ass, so to speak.
(3/3) Elegance: Solidly elegant stuff.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: Mythic does feel right, thanks to the Nevinyrral flavor. Artifact is obvious too.
(3/3) Balance: The symmetricality makes even a destruction effect this potent fair.
Creativity -
(1.5/3) Uniqueness: Obviously borrows from Starke of Rath and Engineered Explosives both.
(2/3) Flavor: I really wish this card had funny flavor text, and while I get why a frisbee is passed back and forth, I’m not sure I understand fully how the destruction ties in - is the disc scything through the target as it sails into the grasp of your opponent as you wing it at them? That’s a funny visual, but how does that work for destroying an enchantment?
Design -
(1.5/3) Appeal: Timmy likes group-hug and control-change effects, Johnny appreciates the sheer number of interactions but doesn’t like how out of his hands the entire ability is, Spike loathes the idea that he has to get two people’s approval to use an ability even in Un-land.
(1/3) Elegance: There’s a lot here that’s inelegant even if it’s a spinoff of the elegant exchange-control concept. Carrying around multiple toys, having to solicit at least two opinions from people outside the game, and using the toy as a token for no real reason, while also giving it the Toy type, and giving that same type to the stolen creature, while not also making the creature an artifact. Yeesh.
Development -
(2.5/3) Viability: Blue is correct; this definitely feels much more like a rare than a mythic, though.
(2.5/3) Balance: If anything this is a card that’s too weak, due to the complete reliance on outside opinions for using it.
Creativity -
(2.5/3) Uniqueness: The use of a physical toy is a pretty unique version of the very old exchange-control effect.
(2/3) Flavor: Why doesn’t the character have a “real” name? Also, the flavor is not so much voluntary sharing as it is forcing a trade of toys.
Polish -
(2/3) Quality: Multiple capitalization errors.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Done.
(2/2) Subchallenges: And done.
Total: 18/25
Design -
(1/3) Appeal: This is almost a pure Johnny card. Effect isn’t big enough for Timmy, nor does it provide nearly enough value for Spike. This is a jank card meant to fuel wacky combos - as something like a 3/2 it’d be a different story.
(2.5/3) Elegance: Why it can only trigger off a creature assembling and not an assembly that the player technically does themselves, I don’t know.
Development -
(2.5/3) Viability: While I certainly wish this were common, and/or had the Relentless Rats ability, due to its self-referential tutoring, uncommon is right for the level of complexity. And, of course, it had to be an artifact.
(2.5/3) Balance: Just about as inoffensive as a card could be, really. Maybe too safe of a design.
Creativity -
(2.5/3) Uniqueness: Reminds me of another famous bird.
(3/3) Flavor: I remember having to make origami cranes for my classmates as an allegedly fun holiday project in elementary school.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Good.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Done.
(2/2) Subchallenges: And done.
Total: 21/25
Design -
(1.5/3) Appeal: Timmy likes the chaos, Johnny would like to use artifact-blowing-up triggers and token creation a lot more if he could actually control how it worked, Spike hates randomness.
(2/3) Elegance: Having to determine a random artifact to sacrifice is a big strike against this card’s elegance.
Development -
(2/3) Viability: With the sheer complexity of this card making random choices and creating noncreature tokens, I think it has to be rare. Colors are correct though.
(3/3) Balance: Seems fine, given how hard it is to get the ideal result all the time.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: Pretty clearly channeling Goblin Test Pilot, and the Toy token is vaguely like a Clue.
(3/3) Flavor: All seems spot-on, with a manic Goblin rebuilding things at random.
Polish -
(1.5/3) Quality: “Choose a random artifact on the battlefield” should be “Choose an artifact at random,” the Toy token needs to be specified as colorless, and the flavor text has no quotation marks.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Done.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Completed.
Total: 19/25
Design -
(2/3) Appeal: Timmy’s into the reward of all those +1/+1 counters. Johnny’s into the stuff you have to do to get there. Spike sees a practically do-nothing card.
(1.5/3) Elegance: This is a card with a lot of moving parts, to put it mildly. Not helping on the elegance front is the fact that thanks to the Toy token’s blocking restriction, you’ll most likely never get the mass pump effect without significant setup (pumping your own toy and forcing your opponent’s to attack into it).
Development -
(2.5/3) Viability: Mythic feels off here - this should be rare imho. Artifact is obviously right.
(3/3) Balance: As a card that requires a combo to do much of anything and that has a symmetrical effect, there’s nothing concerning about the balance.
Creativity -
(3/3) Uniqueness: Definitely innovative stuff, in various ways.
(2.5/3) Flavor: So the Toys battle, tear each other apart, and the remains of the losers somehow enhance even non-Toy creatures?
Polish -
(2.5/3) Quality: One comma too many in the last ability.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Good.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both done.
Total: 21/25
Design -
(2/3) Appeal: A Timmy (10 damage) and Johnny (control-change/counter manipulation) card through and through that doesn’t impress Spike.
(2.5/3) Elegance: Using a static rather than a triggered ability to make the explosion happen is unusual but I get why it was done.
Development -
(2/3) Viability: I don’t think this effect should be uncommon - everything about it feels like a (bad) rare. Artifact is obviously appropriate though.
(2.5/3) Balance: Considering that under non-combo circumstances, this card takes ten turns to deal 10 damage, it’s pretty underpowered.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: Definitely part of a long tradition of similar cards, most of which have “Jinxed” in the name.
(3/3) Flavor: Am I supposed to imagine it’s literally made out of potato? Regardless, very suitable Un-flavor.
Polish -
(1.5/3) Quality: Gnome is a creature type, so using Construct here isn’t appropriate. Flavor text is missing quotation marks.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Done.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Fulfilled.
Total: 19.5/25
Design -
(2.5/3) Appeal: Timmy likes a card that can destroy stuff a lot, Johnny likes a cheap potential combo piece with counter and control-change interactions, and Spike loves it in theory but is definitely paranoid about this card coming back to bite him in the ass, so to speak.
(3/3) Elegance: Solidly elegant stuff.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: Mythic does feel right, thanks to the Nevinyrral flavor. Artifact is obvious too.
(3/3) Balance: The symmetricality makes even a destruction effect this potent fair.
Creativity -
(1.5/3) Uniqueness: Obviously borrows from Starke of Rath and Engineered Explosives both.
(2/3) Flavor: I really wish this card had funny flavor text, and while I get why a frisbee is passed back and forth, I’m not sure I understand fully how the destruction ties in - is the disc scything through the target as it sails into the grasp of your opponent as you wing it at them? That’s a funny visual, but how does that work for destroying an enchantment?
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Good.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Passed.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Done.
Total: 22/25
IcariiFA 22
Raptorchan 21
doomfish 21
Koopa 19.5
NightArcher 19
netn10 18
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝