Ah, the classic Christmas party. The festivities bring families closer and coworkers rather too close.
Main Challenge: Design a card that depicts or creates a party. Alternatively, design one of the party-goers. Subchallenge 1: Your card's converted mana cost is six or below. Subchallenge 2: Your card's color identity has red in it, and it depicts non-angry emotions.
And once again, you may make your submission Silver Bordered if you so desire.
Please message me about any questions you might have about the challenges. Other than that, have fun, and good luck!
Design Deadline: All submissions are to be final and submitted by December 17th 11:59 PM EST
Judging Deadline: All Judgements are to be final and completed by December 20th 11:59 PM EST
Design - (X/3) Appeal: Do the different player psychographics (Timmy/Johhny/Spike) have a use for the card? (X/3) Elegance: Is the card easily understandable at a glance? Do all the flavor and mechanics combined as a whole make sense?
Development - (X/3) Viability: How well does the card fit into the color wheel? Does it break or bend the rules of the game? Is it the appropriate rarity? (X/3) Balance: Does the card have a power level appropriate for contemporary constructed/limited environments without breaking them? Does it play well in casual and multiplayer formats? Does it create or fit into a deck/archetype? Does it create an oppressive environment?
Creativity - (X/3) Uniqueness: Has a card like this ever been printed before? Does it use new mechanics, ideas, or design space? Does it combine old ideas in a new way? Overall, does it feel “fresh”? (X/3) Flavor: Does the name seem realistic for a card? Does the flavor text sound professional? Do all the flavor elements synch together to please Vorthos players?
Polish - (X/3) Quality: Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating. (X/2) *Main Challenge: Was the main challenge satisfied? Was it approached in a unique or interesting way? Does the card fit the intent of the challenge? (X/2) Subchallenges: One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Total: X/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
A reminder to everyone: In the MCC, putting rarity on cards is mandatory! If you don't put a rarity on your card, expect huge deductions in both Viability AND Quality.
Also, you should format your text cards accordingly to the forum rules (see the "this formatting looks best" spoiler in the linked OP). Again, expect deductions in Quality otherwise.
You All Meet at an Inn1UR
Enchantment [M]
As You All Meet at an Inn enters the battlefield, each player chooses Fighter, Mage or Thief.
Attacking creatures a Fighter controls get +2/+0.
Instant and sorcery spells a Mage casts cost 1 less to cast.
At the beginning of a Thief's draw step, that player draws an additional card, then discards a card.
White Elephant5RRR
Sorcery (MR)
Exile all permanents and put them into a pile facedown, then reveal the top card of the pile and put it on to the battlefield under your control. PLAY WHITE ELEPHANT. Continue this process until there are no more cards left in the pile.
Narcissists Waltz4UR
Sorcery (M)
Each player creates a token that's a copy of each nontoken creature an opponent controls. "They refused to dance with anyone else. I made it easy for them."
—Artissa
Spin the Bottle1WR
Instant (R)
Choose target blocking creature at random.
If that creature and the creature it's blocking have the same converted mana cost, both gain lifelink until end of turn and return Spin the Bottle to its owner's hand. Otherwise, Spin the Bottle deals 3 damage to both creatures.
The Neverending RevelRG
Legendary Enchantment {R}
Indestructible
At the beginning of your upkeep, put a music counter on The Neverending Revel.
At the beginning of combat on your turn, target creature you control gets +X/+0 until end of turn, where X is the number of music counters on The Neverending Revel.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A mere ten days after the Mending, a young knight of Valeron and a young ranger of Eos made a discovery that would change Alara forever.
Shaker Partymaker4
Creature - Scarecrow (Un-R) 2RR, t, Sacrifice Shaker Partymaker: Exile all creatures and shuffle them together. Randomly deal to each player one creature card for each creature he or she owned before. Each player puts those creatures onto the battlefield under his or her control.
3/3
Your Parents3UU
Legendary Creature — Human (Un-R)
When Your Parents enter the battlefield, return all other creatures to their owners' hand. "Looks like the party's over."
4/4
(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)
Bonfire Dance2RRR
Enchantment (R)
At the beginning of your upkeep, you may search your library for a Shaman creature card that doesn’t have the same name as a creature you control and put it onto the battlefield. It gains haste until end of turn. Shuffle your library afterwards.
When you control four Shaman creatures, sacrifice Bonfire Dance and add RRRRRRRRRR(10) to your mana pool. Spend this mana only to activate abilities of creatures.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Multiple instances of lifelink on the same creature are redundant.
Multiple instances of lifelink on the same creature are redundant.
Multiple instances of lifelink on the same creature are redundant.
—Eli Shiffrin, Rules Manager, on a design stacking lifelink instances
Flash Party
Instant (R)
Put up to X creature cards with converted mana cost X or less from your hand onto the battlefield, then return those creatures to their owner's hand. Everybody loves partying, Cleaning up... Not that much.
Design- (2.5/3) Appeal: I think a person in the Timmy (1/1) mould would really like this, and it is akin to thinks that Johnny(.5/1) would like as well. Spike (1/1) is turned off by these sorts of cards, but this one entails an exploitable subgame that should appeal to him. (3/3) Elegance: I like that players have agency in the midst of the chaos, so there is more play to this card than there usually is. I also like how it works in a multiplayer setting. An innovative way to bring a (popular?) Christmas game to Magic.
Development- (3/3) Viability: appropriate color, good effect. Requiring cultural-specific knowledge is acceptable in my view, particularly at mythic. I view this as no different than Spike, Tournament Grinder, where you had to know she was in the set so that you'd show up to the event with the appropriate tools. I think the viability of this card rests on how one answers this question. (3/3)Balance: I suppose it befitting that 8 mana is the appropriate cost of bringing Communism to a game of Magic. I like that it can be cast for fun or cast with a purpose.
Creativity- (3/3) Uniqueness: I think this is much more elegant than what we usually see from these Warp World sorts of cards. Well done! (2.75/3) Flavor: Excellent.
Polish- (2.5/3) Quality: Instead of the all caps "PLAY WHITE ELEPHANT", I think a more appropriate wording would have been "Play a game of White Elephant". That way you wouldn't be able to confuse it, as I initially did, with an indication to play the card again as a re-cast. (2/2) Main Challenge: (1/2) Sub-Chalenges: CMC<7 is one of the subchallenges.
Total: 22.75/25
Design- (2.25/3) Appeal: Timmy (.75/1) can see some potent future possibilities with this card, and honestly for similar reasons Johnny (.75/1) and Spike (.75/1) like the card as well. (2.75/3) Elegance: I think being an enchantment is enough to make this "neverending"; it doesn't need Indestructible. I'd rather cards be capable of being interacted with and provide the opponent with meaningful choice. Other than that, the card is clear and easy to remember, and I think the card is immensely elegant and quite deep.
Development- (3/3) Viability: The card is viable. Anything in the Naya colors feels appropriate mechanics-wise. Being in Boros colors would have made the card more powerful, but part of its charm is that it is a bit difficult to pull off something sexy. (3/3) Balance: Potentially powerful, yet in a way that can be interacted with, and in a way that gives the opponent time to come up with a plan of action and a solution. If there's a definition of "balance", that is it for a rare or mythic.
Creativity- (2/3) Uniqueness: A fresh take on an Xenagos, God of Revels effect. (2.75/3) Flavor: Resonant and immersive. Attention to detail paid off here.
Polish- (3/3) Quality: (1.75/2) Main Challenge: I don't get a party feeling from the card even though a revel is a religious party of sorts. The card is too measured to feel bacchanalian. (2/2) Sub-Chalenges:
Total:22.50/25
Design- (3/3) Appeal: Timmy (1/1), Spike (1/1) , and Johnny (1/1) all find this card immensely enticing. The card beckons the reader in multitudinous ways. (1.75/3) Elegance: I think the card is approaching elegant. Upon one read through you have a clear idea of what the card is doing, and it is quite easy to remember. One thing I think I would excise for clarity is the haste clause in the first part. That seems unnecessary in an already complex card. I think if you want the haste in there, I'd put it as the last sentence in the second part ("Creatures you control have haste until end of turn") - that's easier to remember. I appreciate the number 10 after the mana symbols, as that was extremely poorly executed with energy in Kaladesh Block. I did not like squinting at my computer screen to count those symbols!
The other thing I find inelegant about the card is that the sacrifice trigger occurs only when you have exactly 4 creatures, not "4 or more". I don't like the potential for abuse there….we should do our best to create depth by means other than creating loopholes.
Development- (3/3) Viability: Most of the potential problems regarding the card's viability relate to its balance. Nothing about the fundamentals of the card's function are problematic. (1.5/3) Balance: I think this card has a balance problem. Cards don't need to be balanced for every format to see print, but for the two formats that frequently use cards that cost 5 or more (Standard and Commander), I think this card is problematic. You not only get a tutor effect every turn, but you get to put that card onto the battlefield (permanently) and the creature gets haste. And instead of costing it at 6 or 7 mana, you costed it at 5. I prefer to see fun cards like this costed competitively because competitive players like fun cards too, but you need to lower its power level. There are several ways to do this.
Perhaps: "When Bonfire Dance enters the battlefield, search your library for four Shaman cards with different names and exile them. At the beginning of your upkeep, put a card exiled with Bonfire Dance onto the battlefield. If you can't, sacrifice Bonfire Dance.
When Bonfire Dance becomes sacrificed,…". Even that version would probably be better at 6 mana than 5, but it feels closer to balanced while retaining the fun exciting element you so beautifully designed!
Creativity- (3/3) Uniqueness: a great way to spur interest in a fun and mechanically-interesting tribe. And not just because the card is powerful - I sense that you took great care to address a traditional Constructed weakness of many Shaman cards - they require activated abilities with mana costs, and I really love how you addressed that weakness here. (3/3) Flavor: Feels very Shaman-esque.
Polish- (3/3) Quality: (2/2) Main Challenge: (2/2) Sub-Chalenges:
All three designs are excellent and I wish that I could send all three to the next round. I hope my scores indicate that I liked each of your cards very much.
Design - (2/3) Appeal: A fine group hug for Timmy, and Johnny can use the cost reduction or the extra draw well. (2.5/3) Elegance: A little wordy, though it's clear what's going on.
Development - (2/3) Viability: Could get annoying to track who picked what at a multiplayer group, would need to bust out the paper. (3/3) Balance: Appropriately costed for a group-huggy card, nor is it cheap enough that johnny (or Spike) could abuse a mode.
Creativity - (3/3) Uniqueness: Mass "Siege" effect hasn't been done before.i c (2.75/3) Flavor: Love it, although to truly form a party you'd need to pick different classes; there's no 3 fighter DnD parties!
Polish - (3/3) Quality: Check. (2/2) *Main Challenge: Not quite the party I had in mind, but I suppose that works too. (1.5/2) Subchallenges: It's red, but there's not any particular emotion depicted.
Total: 21.75/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Design - (1.5/3) Appeal: A fine group hug effect. Johnny is less enthused than usual about mass clone effects, since he can't copy/donate his own stuff. (3/3) Elegance: With correct templating, it's reasonably straightforward.
Development - (3/3) Viability: Sure. (2.5/3) Balance: This could have been rare if it's not copying your own stuff.
Creativity - (2.5/3) Uniqueness: Mass clone effects have been done a few times before, though this is an interesting and well flavored spin on them. (3/3) Flavor: I finally got the flavor as I was judging, very nice!
Polish - (1/3) Quality: Templating is pretty off, you're not making a single token that's somehow a copy of every creature! "Each player creates a copy of each creature target opponent controls." (2/2) *Main Challenge: I guess a waltz counts as a party. (2/2) Subchallenges: Narcissism counts.
Total: 20.5/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Design - (1.5/3) Appeal: Woo chaos reigns! Hard for Johnny to exploit if it's dealing back the same number. (2.5/3) Elegance: Uh sure.
Development - (1/3) Viability: This had to specify nontoken or keep everything on board, otherwise you end up with less creatures to deal than each player should get and it's not clear what happens then. Also iirc there's an effect that stops movement to exile that'd break the card entirely, though I can't remember exactly what that was so I won't dock. (2.5/3) Balance: A bit low on the curve for a mass shuffle effect, although it gives a turn in advance and only hits creatures.
Creativity - (2/3) Uniqueness: Reminiscent of Thieves Auction and Scrambleverse, though with a fairer restriction to reflect the lower cost. (3/3) Flavor: It's a matchmaker!
Polish - (3/3) Quality: Not double dipping on the big problem. (2/2) *Main Challenge: check. (2/2) Subchallenges: I'm assuming he's a good matchmaker and there's some love going on.
Total: 19.5/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Design - (1.5/3) Appeal: Tribal Timmy loves this card (I see that Gahiji EDH in your sig!), although the strict mana requirements cut a lot of tribes out of the fun. (1.5/3) Elegance: That is a LOT of text, like 9 lines of small font lot of text. It helps the abilities are all connected, but still.
Development - (3/3) Viability: Sure. (2.5/3) Balance: A tad weak for a 4 mana tribal payoff, stuff like Coat of Arms is better for most token amounts. And I dislike the strict mana cost even in the decks that can cast it, I think this'd have been fine as a green/red card (or a even a green/colorless card, though that'd have gone against the second challenge).
Creativity - (3/3) Uniqueness: It's like Mayael's Aria and Akroma's Memorial had a child. (2/3) Flavor: They're getting stronger together and stuff, I get it. But it's been done before on a lot of cards and doesn't come through super hard here.
Polish - (3/3) Quality: Looks good. (2/2) *Main Challenge: I guess they could be partying while they're all around. (1.5/2) Subchallenges: Red, but really no emotion.
Total: 20/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Totals: The Hittite: 21.75 IcaraiiFA: 20.5
RaptorChan: 19.5
StonerOfKruphix: 20
Design - (2/3) Appeal: Timmy likes double strike, Johnny might want to do something with the variable strike speeds, and it's too fragile and not impactful enough at rare for Spike to care. (2.5/3) Elegance: The loss of last strike is necessary but a bit inelegant.
Development - (3/3) Viability: Colors and rarity look right. Appropriate for Un. (3/3) Balance: A 2/1 double striker (while attacking) that is a very poor blocker is fine for two mana at rare. Would be good enough in Limited but never really a star.
Creativity - (1.5/3) Uniqueness: The end result - a 2/1 double striker - isn't exactly exciting and new, although adding interpretive dance to an Uncard is fun. (2/3) Flavor: Name is a little too on-the-nose although I can picture the art pretty well; no flavor text even though there's room for it.
Design - (0.5/3) Appeal: Timmy's not much for fairly small, symmetrical effects. Spike is in no way paying three mana for an effect he can't even control and that will always also benefit an opponent. This is a pure Johnny card - barely even that, since it's randomized. (0.5/3) Elegance: Random targeting, modes based on comparing CMCs, and not accounting for multiblocks? Pretty inelegant.
Development - (2.5/3) Viability: The colors are correct, but as complex as this is it's hard to justify at rare; an effect of this scale seems more uncommon, especially in as complex a set as an unset. (2.5/3) Balance: This card is really quite weak no matter the format or context.
Creativity - (3/3) Uniqueness: A pretty unprecedented effect, definitely this card's strong point. (1/3) Flavor: The real-life game of spin the bottle really doesn't quite jibe with the effect here. Also, no flavor text.
Polish - (2/3) Quality: Mana symbols in the wrong order, wording doesn't account for multiblocks. (2/2) *Main Challenge: Fine. (2/2) Subchallenges: And done.
Total: 16/25
Design - (3/3) Appeal: Timmy likes a board-clearing beater, Johnny definitely appreciates ETB triggers and the ability to reuse his own, Spike likes a boardwipe that comes with a body. (3/3) Elegance: Solidly elegant.
Development - (2/3) Viability: Blue's fine, so's rare, but this is really not appropriate for an unset mechanically; in Unstable we saw a few staple commons that could pass for normal-set cards but that's it. I would be highly disappointed to have such an "ordinary" card as my rare in an unbooster. (2/3) Balance: Strong stuff - Evacuation has the same mana cost and is a good card. Sorcery speed is certainly a disadvantage, but this would be a grieferish commander.
Creativity - (0.5/3) Uniqueness: Literally just mass bounce on a body, and on a legend at that - this is a very pedestrian design. (3/3) Flavor: Funny.
Polish - (3/3) Quality: Fine. (1.5/2) *Main Challenge: Your parents coming to break up the party aren't really "partygoers" per se, are they? (1/2) Subchallenges: Not red.
Total: 19/25
Design - (3/3) Appeal: You found something to unite the player psychographics - abusing ETB triggers at a discount. (3/3) Elegance: Nicely elegant.
Development - (2.5/3) Viability: Not sure how well this actually works in red; if I had to hybridize the blue in this with any color my first pick would be green, and white would also spring to mind - red is only slightly better than black, although I see where you're coming from. Rare is appropriate. (2.5/3) Balance: Abusable. Fun? Yes. But super abusable. Definitely tempered by needing all your other combo pieces in hand, though.
Creativity - (2/3) Uniqueness: Definitely reminds me of Flash and its buddy, but the execution is unique. (3/3) Flavor: Looks good.
Ah, the classic Christmas party. The festivities bring families closer and coworkers rather too close.
Main Challenge: Design a card that depicts or creates a party. Alternatively, design one of the party-goers.
Subchallenge 1: Your card's converted mana cost is six or below.
Subchallenge 2: Your card's color identity has red in it, and it depicts non-angry emotions.
And once again, you may make your submission Silver Bordered if you so desire.
Please message me about any questions you might have about the challenges. Other than that, have fun, and good luck!
Design Deadline: All submissions are to be final and submitted by December 17th 11:59 PM EST
Judging Deadline: All Judgements are to be final and completed by December 20th 11:59 PM EST
(X/3) Appeal: Do the different player psychographics (Timmy/Johhny/Spike) have a use for the card?
(X/3) Elegance: Is the card easily understandable at a glance? Do all the flavor and mechanics combined as a whole make sense?
Development -
(X/3) Viability: How well does the card fit into the color wheel? Does it break or bend the rules of the game? Is it the appropriate rarity?
(X/3) Balance: Does the card have a power level appropriate for contemporary constructed/limited environments without breaking them? Does it play well in casual and multiplayer formats? Does it create or fit into a deck/archetype? Does it create an oppressive environment?
Creativity -
(X/3) Uniqueness: Has a card like this ever been printed before? Does it use new mechanics, ideas, or design space? Does it combine old ideas in a new way? Overall, does it feel “fresh”?
(X/3) Flavor: Does the name seem realistic for a card? Does the flavor text sound professional? Do all the flavor elements synch together to please Vorthos players?
Polish -
(X/3) Quality: Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
(X/2) *Main Challenge: Was the main challenge satisfied? Was it approached in a unique or interesting way? Does the card fit the intent of the challenge?
(X/2) Subchallenges: One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Total: X/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Judges:
ManyCookies
void_nothing
kjsharp
Contestants:
PsyOp
Controll
RaikouRider
Groovelord
The Hittite
Flatline
Panathas
Hemlock
StonerOfKruphix
IcariiFA
RaptorChan
doomfish
Koopa
A helpful tip for those formatting their cards:
Enchantment [M]
As You All Meet at an Inn enters the battlefield, each player chooses Fighter, Mage or Thief.
Attacking creatures a Fighter controls get +2/+0.
Instant and sorcery spells a Mage casts cost 1 less to cast.
At the beginning of a Thief's draw step, that player draws an additional card, then discards a card.
Art source
Sorcery (MR)
Exile all permanents and put them into a pile facedown, then reveal the top card of the pile and put it on to the battlefield under your control. PLAY WHITE ELEPHANT. Continue this process until there are no more cards left in the pile.
BGStandard Green AggroGB
UWRGModern Saheeli CobraGRWU
UBRGLegacy StormGRBU
Wizards Certified Rules Advisor
Sorcery (M)
Each player creates a token that's a copy of each nontoken creature an opponent controls.
"They refused to dance with anyone else. I made it easy for them."
—Artissa
Instant (R)
Choose target blocking creature at random.
If that creature and the creature it's blocking have the same converted mana cost, both gain lifelink until end of turn and return Spin the Bottle to its owner's hand. Otherwise, Spin the Bottle deals 3 damage to both creatures.
- My Full Mirrodin Cube (draft it here)
- My One-Drop Cube (draft it here)
MCC Winner Nov ‘14 & Nov ‘15
Legendary Enchantment {R}
Indestructible
At the beginning of your upkeep, put a music counter on The Neverending Revel.
At the beginning of combat on your turn, target creature you control gets +X/+0 until end of turn, where X is the number of music counters on The Neverending Revel.
Emille, Seven-Sting Dancer Shalin Nariya
Creature - Scarecrow (Un-R)
2RR, t, Sacrifice Shaker Partymaker: Exile all creatures and shuffle them together. Randomly deal to each player one creature card for each creature he or she owned before. Each player puts those creatures onto the battlefield under his or her control.
3/3
Legendary Creature — Human (Un-R)
When Your Parents enter the battlefield, return all other creatures to their owners' hand.
"Looks like the party's over."
4/4
Enchantment (R)
At the beginning of your upkeep, you may search your library for a Shaman creature card that doesn’t have the same name as a creature you control and put it onto the battlefield. It gains haste until end of turn. Shuffle your library afterwards.
When you control four Shaman creatures, sacrifice Bonfire Dance and add RRRRRRRRRR (10) to your mana pool. Spend this mana only to activate abilities of creatures.
Multiple instances of lifelink on the same creature are redundant.
Multiple instances of lifelink on the same creature are redundant.
—Eli Shiffrin, Rules Manager, on a design stacking lifelink instances
Instant (R)
Put up to X creature cards with converted mana cost X or less from your hand onto the battlefield, then return those creatures to their owner's hand.
Everybody loves partying, Cleaning up... Not that much.
ManyCookies:
The_Hittite
IcariiFA
RaptorChan
StonerOfKruphix
void_nothing:
Conntroll
palanthas
Flatline
Hemlock
kjsharp:
Koopa
RaikouRider
doomfish
(2.5/3) Appeal: I think a person in the Timmy (1/1) mould would really like this, and it is akin to thinks that Johnny(.5/1) would like as well. Spike (1/1) is turned off by these sorts of cards, but this one entails an exploitable subgame that should appeal to him.
(3/3) Elegance: I like that players have agency in the midst of the chaos, so there is more play to this card than there usually is. I also like how it works in a multiplayer setting. An innovative way to bring a (popular?) Christmas game to Magic.
Development-
(3/3) Viability: appropriate color, good effect. Requiring cultural-specific knowledge is acceptable in my view, particularly at mythic. I view this as no different than Spike, Tournament Grinder, where you had to know she was in the set so that you'd show up to the event with the appropriate tools. I think the viability of this card rests on how one answers this question.
(3/3)Balance: I suppose it befitting that 8 mana is the appropriate cost of bringing Communism to a game of Magic. I like that it can be cast for fun or cast with a purpose.
Creativity-
(3/3) Uniqueness: I think this is much more elegant than what we usually see from these Warp World sorts of cards. Well done!
(2.75/3) Flavor: Excellent.
Polish-
(2.5/3) Quality: Instead of the all caps "PLAY WHITE ELEPHANT", I think a more appropriate wording would have been "Play a game of White Elephant". That way you wouldn't be able to confuse it, as I initially did, with an indication to play the card again as a re-cast.
(2/2) Main Challenge:
(1/2) Sub-Chalenges: CMC<7 is one of the subchallenges.
Total: 22.75/25
Design-
(2.25/3) Appeal: Timmy (.75/1) can see some potent future possibilities with this card, and honestly for similar reasons Johnny (.75/1) and Spike (.75/1) like the card as well.
(2.75/3) Elegance: I think being an enchantment is enough to make this "neverending"; it doesn't need Indestructible. I'd rather cards be capable of being interacted with and provide the opponent with meaningful choice. Other than that, the card is clear and easy to remember, and I think the card is immensely elegant and quite deep.
Development-
(3/3) Viability: The card is viable. Anything in the Naya colors feels appropriate mechanics-wise. Being in Boros colors would have made the card more powerful, but part of its charm is that it is a bit difficult to pull off something sexy.
(3/3) Balance: Potentially powerful, yet in a way that can be interacted with, and in a way that gives the opponent time to come up with a plan of action and a solution. If there's a definition of "balance", that is it for a rare or mythic.
Creativity-
(2/3) Uniqueness: A fresh take on an Xenagos, God of Revels effect.
(2.75/3) Flavor: Resonant and immersive. Attention to detail paid off here.
Polish-
(3/3) Quality:
(1.75/2) Main Challenge: I don't get a party feeling from the card even though a revel is a religious party of sorts. The card is too measured to feel bacchanalian.
(2/2) Sub-Chalenges:
Total:22.50/25
(3/3) Appeal: Timmy (1/1), Spike (1/1) , and Johnny (1/1) all find this card immensely enticing. The card beckons the reader in multitudinous ways.
(1.75/3) Elegance: I think the card is approaching elegant. Upon one read through you have a clear idea of what the card is doing, and it is quite easy to remember. One thing I think I would excise for clarity is the haste clause in the first part. That seems unnecessary in an already complex card. I think if you want the haste in there, I'd put it as the last sentence in the second part ("Creatures you control have haste until end of turn") - that's easier to remember. I appreciate the number 10 after the mana symbols, as that was extremely poorly executed with energy in Kaladesh Block. I did not like squinting at my computer screen to count those symbols!
The other thing I find inelegant about the card is that the sacrifice trigger occurs only when you have exactly 4 creatures, not "4 or more". I don't like the potential for abuse there….we should do our best to create depth by means other than creating loopholes.
Development-
(3/3) Viability: Most of the potential problems regarding the card's viability relate to its balance. Nothing about the fundamentals of the card's function are problematic.
(1.5/3) Balance: I think this card has a balance problem. Cards don't need to be balanced for every format to see print, but for the two formats that frequently use cards that cost 5 or more (Standard and Commander), I think this card is problematic. You not only get a tutor effect every turn, but you get to put that card onto the battlefield (permanently) and the creature gets haste. And instead of costing it at 6 or 7 mana, you costed it at 5. I prefer to see fun cards like this costed competitively because competitive players like fun cards too, but you need to lower its power level. There are several ways to do this.
Perhaps: "When Bonfire Dance enters the battlefield, search your library for four Shaman cards with different names and exile them. At the beginning of your upkeep, put a card exiled with Bonfire Dance onto the battlefield. If you can't, sacrifice Bonfire Dance.
When Bonfire Dance becomes sacrificed,…". Even that version would probably be better at 6 mana than 5, but it feels closer to balanced while retaining the fun exciting element you so beautifully designed!
Creativity-
(3/3) Uniqueness: a great way to spur interest in a fun and mechanically-interesting tribe. And not just because the card is powerful - I sense that you took great care to address a traditional Constructed weakness of many Shaman cards - they require activated abilities with mana costs, and I really love how you addressed that weakness here.
(3/3) Flavor: Feels very Shaman-esque.
Polish-
(3/3) Quality:
(2/2) Main Challenge:
(2/2) Sub-Chalenges:
Total:22.25
Koopa: 22.75
RaikouRider: 22.50
doomfish: 22.25
All three designs are excellent and I wish that I could send all three to the next round. I hope my scores indicate that I liked each of your cards very much.
(2/3) Appeal: A fine group hug for Timmy, and Johnny can use the cost reduction or the extra draw well.
(2.5/3) Elegance: A little wordy, though it's clear what's going on.
Development -
(2/3) Viability: Could get annoying to track who picked what at a multiplayer group, would need to bust out the paper.
(3/3) Balance: Appropriately costed for a group-huggy card, nor is it cheap enough that johnny (or Spike) could abuse a mode.
Creativity -
(3/3) Uniqueness: Mass "Siege" effect hasn't been done before.i c
(2.75/3) Flavor: Love it, although to truly form a party you'd need to pick different classes; there's no 3 fighter DnD parties!
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Check.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Not quite the party I had in mind, but I suppose that works too.
(1.5/2) Subchallenges: It's red, but there's not any particular emotion depicted.
Total: 21.75/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
(1.5/3) Appeal: A fine group hug effect. Johnny is less enthused than usual about mass clone effects, since he can't copy/donate his own stuff.
(3/3) Elegance: With correct templating, it's reasonably straightforward.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: Sure.
(2.5/3) Balance: This could have been rare if it's not copying your own stuff.
Creativity -
(2.5/3) Uniqueness: Mass clone effects have been done a few times before, though this is an interesting and well flavored spin on them.
(3/3) Flavor: I finally got the flavor as I was judging, very nice!
Polish -
(1/3) Quality: Templating is pretty off, you're not making a single token that's somehow a copy of every creature! "Each player creates a copy of each creature target opponent controls."
(2/2) *Main Challenge: I guess a waltz counts as a party.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Narcissism counts.
Total: 20.5/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
(1.5/3) Appeal: Woo chaos reigns! Hard for Johnny to exploit if it's dealing back the same number.
(2.5/3) Elegance: Uh sure.
Development -
(1/3) Viability: This had to specify nontoken or keep everything on board, otherwise you end up with less creatures to deal than each player should get and it's not clear what happens then. Also iirc there's an effect that stops movement to exile that'd break the card entirely, though I can't remember exactly what that was so I won't dock.
(2.5/3) Balance: A bit low on the curve for a mass shuffle effect, although it gives a turn in advance and only hits creatures.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: Reminiscent of Thieves Auction and Scrambleverse, though with a fairer restriction to reflect the lower cost.
(3/3) Flavor: It's a matchmaker!
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Not double dipping on the big problem.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: check.
(2/2) Subchallenges: I'm assuming he's a good matchmaker and there's some love going on.
Total: 19.5/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
(1.5/3) Appeal: Tribal Timmy loves this card (I see that Gahiji EDH in your sig!), although the strict mana requirements cut a lot of tribes out of the fun.
(1.5/3) Elegance: That is a LOT of text, like 9 lines of small font lot of text. It helps the abilities are all connected, but still.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: Sure.
(2.5/3) Balance: A tad weak for a 4 mana tribal payoff, stuff like Coat of Arms is better for most token amounts. And I dislike the strict mana cost even in the decks that can cast it, I think this'd have been fine as a green/red card (or a even a green/colorless card, though that'd have gone against the second challenge).
Creativity -
(3/3) Uniqueness: It's like Mayael's Aria and Akroma's Memorial had a child.
(2/3) Flavor: They're getting stronger together and stuff, I get it. But it's been done before on a lot of cards and doesn't come through super hard here.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Looks good.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: I guess they could be partying while they're all around.
(1.5/2) Subchallenges: Red, but really no emotion.
Total: 20/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Totals:
The Hittite: 21.75
IcaraiiFA: 20.5
RaptorChan: 19.5
StonerOfKruphix: 20
Design -
(2/3) Appeal: Timmy likes double strike, Johnny might want to do something with the variable strike speeds, and it's too fragile and not impactful enough at rare for Spike to care.
(2.5/3) Elegance: The loss of last strike is necessary but a bit inelegant.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: Colors and rarity look right. Appropriate for Un.
(3/3) Balance: A 2/1 double striker (while attacking) that is a very poor blocker is fine for two mana at rare. Would be good enough in Limited but never really a star.
Creativity -
(1.5/3) Uniqueness: The end result - a 2/1 double striker - isn't exactly exciting and new, although adding interpretive dance to an Uncard is fun.
(2/3) Flavor: Name is a little too on-the-nose although I can picture the art pretty well; no flavor text even though there's room for it.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Looks good.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Done.
(2/2) Subchallenges: And done.
Total: 21/25
Design -
(0.5/3) Appeal: Timmy's not much for fairly small, symmetrical effects. Spike is in no way paying three mana for an effect he can't even control and that will always also benefit an opponent. This is a pure Johnny card - barely even that, since it's randomized.
(0.5/3) Elegance: Random targeting, modes based on comparing CMCs, and not accounting for multiblocks? Pretty inelegant.
Development -
(2.5/3) Viability: The colors are correct, but as complex as this is it's hard to justify at rare; an effect of this scale seems more uncommon, especially in as complex a set as an unset.
(2.5/3) Balance: This card is really quite weak no matter the format or context.
Creativity -
(3/3) Uniqueness: A pretty unprecedented effect, definitely this card's strong point.
(1/3) Flavor: The real-life game of spin the bottle really doesn't quite jibe with the effect here. Also, no flavor text.
Polish -
(2/3) Quality: Mana symbols in the wrong order, wording doesn't account for multiblocks.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Fine.
(2/2) Subchallenges: And done.
Total: 16/25
Design -
(3/3) Appeal: Timmy likes a board-clearing beater, Johnny definitely appreciates ETB triggers and the ability to reuse his own, Spike likes a boardwipe that comes with a body.
(3/3) Elegance: Solidly elegant.
Development -
(2/3) Viability: Blue's fine, so's rare, but this is really not appropriate for an unset mechanically; in Unstable we saw a few staple commons that could pass for normal-set cards but that's it. I would be highly disappointed to have such an "ordinary" card as my rare in an unbooster.
(2/3) Balance: Strong stuff - Evacuation has the same mana cost and is a good card. Sorcery speed is certainly a disadvantage, but this would be a grieferish commander.
Creativity -
(0.5/3) Uniqueness: Literally just mass bounce on a body, and on a legend at that - this is a very pedestrian design.
(3/3) Flavor: Funny.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Fine.
(1.5/2) *Main Challenge: Your parents coming to break up the party aren't really "partygoers" per se, are they?
(1/2) Subchallenges: Not red.
Total: 19/25
Design -
(3/3) Appeal: You found something to unite the player psychographics - abusing ETB triggers at a discount.
(3/3) Elegance: Nicely elegant.
Development -
(2.5/3) Viability: Not sure how well this actually works in red; if I had to hybridize the blue in this with any color my first pick would be green, and white would also spring to mind - red is only slightly better than black, although I see where you're coming from. Rare is appropriate.
(2.5/3) Balance: Abusable. Fun? Yes. But super abusable. Definitely tempered by needing all your other combo pieces in hand, though.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: Definitely reminds me of Flash and its buddy, but the execution is unique.
(3/3) Flavor: Looks good.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Fine.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Done.
(2/2) Subchallenges: And done.
Total: 23/25
Hemlock 23
Controll 21
Flatline 19
palanthas 16
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝