As the New Year approaches, we resolve to do better for the upcoming year. And like Liliana, we tend to abandon those resolutions pretty quickly.
Main Challenge: Design a card that depicts a character coming to a resolution, taking an oath, or otherwise decisively choosing one path over another. Subchallenge 1: Your card's rarity is rare or mythic. Subchallenge 2: Your character was generally evil, selfish, warlike, or otherwise "bad" before this event (...and may still be "bad" afterwards!).
Your card may be Silver Bordered if you'd like.
Please message me about any questions you might have about the challenges. Other than that, have fun, and good luck!
Subchallenge 2: The pun/play-on-words doesn't have to be remotely good!
Design Deadline: All submissions are to be final and submitted by January 4th 11:59 PM EST
Judging Deadline: All judgements are to be final and completed by January 7th 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.
Broken Faith1BB
Enchantment [R]
When Broken Faith enters the battlefield, choose a creature card name.
Creatures with the chosen name enter the battlefield under your control. “All my life I’ve tried to prove myself worthy of your respect. Now I wonder if you were ever worthy of mine.”
Dartroks Ambition1UB
Enchantment (R)
Sacrifice a creature: Creatures you control can't be blocked this turn.
Whenever one or more creatures you control attacks and isn't blocked, create a 2/2 black Zombie enchantment creature token. He sought to sway the gods to favor his men in war. By wars end, his men all bore masks of gold.
Design - (2/3) Appeal: Spike appreciates a Nevermore, and Johnny can pull off some pretty mean things with it (breaking Eureka-esque symmetries, flickering, Dubious Challenge if we're going really awful). (3/3) Elegance: Sure.
Development - (3/3) Viability: I think basially-Nevermore makes sense in black as a Memoricide variant, especially when restricted to creatures. And mind control is secondary in black. (3/3) Balance: Nevermore was totally fine, and the Johnny abuse cases aren't that exploitable.
Creativity - (1.5/3) Uniqueness: Well I compared this to Nevermore like three times! (3/3) Flavor: Lovely.
Polish - (3/3) Quality: Check. (2/2) *Main Challenge: Check. (1.5/2) Subchallenges: Hmm. I get what you were going for, an evil lieutenant doing her heel-face turn, but I think that particular point got a little muddled. Maybe you wanted to name the character and her boss (Ob-Nixilis)?
Total: 22/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
(For some reason I instantly thought the character was female, I wonder what that says about me.)
Design - (1.5/3) Appeal: A spikier card. Johnny doesn't mind unblockable, although it's hard to engine it when you only get one zombie a turn. (3/3) Elegance: Sure.
Development - (3/3) Viability: A black/blue effect. (2/3) Balance: I'd like this more if you couldn't sac the produced zombies, because you can end up in situations where the card is "Sac a creature or get in a flying hit, everything has unblockable for the rest of the game." That won't happen every game, but the games where it does are kind of miserable. And the card is strong outside of that ("I play evasive threat, get a 2/2 every turn, get to set up an alpha later on), so it'd happen with some regularity.
Creativity - (3/3) Uniqueness: Yep. (2.5/3) Flavor: Love the overall picture, but the king doesn't get to sac his zombified soldiers for more favor! You think Phenax is gonna be like "Oh sweet you killed that zombie like four times now, good job mortal"?
Polish - (2.5/3) Quality:Path of Bravery suggests this should be the plural "one or more creatures attack and aren't blocked". (1.5/2) *Main Challenge: I feel this lacks a... strong pivot? He hasn't come to some major resolution in the card; I would have liked to see that decision, the moment he goes "Screw it, I shall stop at nothing to obtain victory, even if it means murdering my army". (2/2) Subchallenges: Check.
Total: 21/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Design - (1.5/3) Appeal: Well Spike likes the power level (if not necessarily the effect), and the grief-ier Timmies like the hard lock. (3/3) Elegance: Yea.
Development - (2.5/3) Viability: Blue/White does sealing, though this a bit... definitive for a seal. I'd be more appropiate for the color pair if the exiled creatures came back on destruction. (0/3) Balance: Holy balls, that is WAY too definitive of an answer at 7 mana. Overwhelming Splendor wasn't half as effective of an answer this is, and that was at 8 mana!
Creativity - (2.5/3) Uniqueness: Super mega Final Judgement. (3/3) Flavor: How about that old planeswalker flavor!
Polish - (3/3) Quality: Check. (2/2) *Main Challenge: Check. (1/2) Subchallenges: Well the flavor is we're sending our banished creatures back to where they were summoned/aether (depending on flavor), is that really that evil?
Total: 18.5/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Reviewed and finalized from my end. The worst part about these judge reports is that they incentivize me to write only to justify taking off points rather than writing what I like about the cards. Keep in mind that I liked all of your cards more than the words on the page indicate.
Design - (1.5/3) Appeal: Removal and hate cards have a certain base level of appeal to account for. Timmy (.5/1) is more excited than usual. Johnny (.25/1) likes the "gotcha" aspect of the card but curses under his breath that the card says "creature card name". Spike (.75/1) sees it as a de-powered Nevermore sideboard hate card for Standard. (2.75/3) Elegance: Mechanically clear and understandable and elegant. In practice this is Nevermore, which detracts from its elegance a bit (the ability on the text box is so penalizing that it will never be triggered); I'd have made the same call for the sake of flavor. Development - (2.5/3) Viability: Fundamentally viable (I was wrong to score this at a 1 in my first sweep through), but I question the benefit of making this card Black from a mechanical perspective. What architectural problem are we trying to solve here? Does the color of discard need this type of effect? Does the card make sense in Black? Do we want White and Black, in the age of Adanto Vanguard, to become even more identical? I would have liked a slightly new spin on Nevermore better, perhaps the following:
Broken Faith3RR
Enchantment (R)
When Broken Faith enters the battlefield, choose a creature name.
Creatures with the chosen name enter the battlefield under your control. Freedom requires choosing your own master.
I'm personally curious what the other judges make of your card. I would have tried to put this sort of effect in Red or Blue. Do you like my take on your card?
(3/3) Balance: Cards like Dispossess are printed enough that I think underpowered hate cards merit a 3.
Creativity - (1.75/3) Uniqueness: I think the mental energy and creativity that went into designing this card is greater than what we see on the printed card. (3/3) Flavor: Immersive and flavorful text box!
Polish - (3/3) Quality: (2/2) *Main Challenge: (1/2) Subchallenges: Presumably you did the opposite of the challenge, creating a creature who was loyal and then turned treasonous.
Total: 20.5/25
Design - (2.25/3) Appeal: A broadly appealing card, and to all psychologies and ways of approaching the game. Timmy (.75/1) likes making his creatures unblockable. Johnny (.75/1) wants to look for ways to "break" this card. Spike (.75/1) perceives that the card can be leveraged competitively for value. (2.5/3) Elegance: crystal clear. Flavor of card and the expectations it creates in the reader's mind will not match gameplay.
Development - (3/3) Viability: Appropriate colors, the card builds on top of itself without being limited by itself and toppling over in complexity. (1.5/3) Balance: Similar to your mistletoe card from last round, I think this card needs a slight tweak to be balanced (and that tweak makes a world of difference). You either need to make it read: "Sacrifice a non-token creature:..." or "Sacrifice a creature: Target creature can't be blocked...". As written you make an initial investment of sacrificing one creature and then all of your creatures become unblockable for the rest of the game.
Creativity - (3/3) Uniqueness: Very! Excellent entry. (3/3) Flavor: I like the flavor. A pirate-vibe to the card with Nyx callbacks. The flavor text really helps you understand the card.
Polish - (2.75/3) Quality: Get that possessive apostraphe in there! (1/2) *Main Challenge: This doesn't show a crossroads decision or the coming to a resolution - it shows the desires and resolve of a particular character, a desire and resolve that could have always been with that character. (2/2) Subchallenges:
Total: 21/25
Design - (1.75/3) Appeal: Timmy (.5/1) thinks it is powerful even if this is not his cup of tea. I can see how Johnny (.75/1) might like to lock people out of the game. Spike (.5/1) most certainly likes this, albeit for all the wrong reasons. (2.5/3) Elegance: From the standpoint of mechanical elegance, you've done a good job. You've given control players a very particular tool that fulfills a certain purpose. I think cards that are supremely elegant behave more like swiss army knives than hammers or screw-drivers (i.e. they have some hidden depth or wider applicability than what you see upon a first read), but your card is definitely elegant.
Development - (1.5/3) Viability: The reason this card isn't viable is largely due to balance issues. I'm taking off points here for 2 reasons. (1) the card could be mono-white or white-black. Mechanically blue is contributing nothing. Flavorfully blue is contributing nothing. I wouldn't take off for a single blue mana symbol because there are often reasons to include that beyond what a judge might see, but two blue mana symbols strikes me as beyond the pale. (2) You're creating an absolute and total answer to the main axis along which Magic is played. Answers, like threats, should be softer. An environment can't be balanced if hard, absolute, final answers like this existed. (.5/3) Balance: At minimum this should cost 9. At 7 you're destroying the ability for Standard to have midrange decks in it. The concept is more repugnant than the reality. I feel like the rubric is double-penalizing you here, since the reason it's not balanced is fundamentally tied to the reason it's not viable - it's too total and absolute of an answer to the fundamental axis of Magic gameplay. I'm quite critical when Wizards prints cards like Back to Nature after an enchantment block - total answers are bad for the game and for format diversity. Release the Gremlins is the appropriate power level for a hate card in my opinion. Creativity - (1.25/3) Uniqueness: (2/3) Flavor:[Revised up]. I don't think many will like the flavor of the card as a whole. The flavor text is strange. Yes, you're no longer inhibiting others freedom when you slaughter them. Go read the opening of Plato's Euthydemus. You'll get a kick out of it.
Question: is the flavor text supposed to be funny? Am I being too serious? Are we supposed to get a Joker vibe? Polish - (3/3) Quality: (2/2) *Main Challenge: (2/2) Subchallenges: Turning evil? Check!
Design - (2.5/3) Appeal: Not quite a big enough effect for Timmy necessarily but he does like stealing his opponent's best stuff. Johnny can think of plenty of combos and Spike likes a flexible hoser. (3/3) Elegance: Highly elegant.
Development - (2/3) Viability: Rare looks right. I really question this being black rather than blue, though. I know black has gotten control steal in the past, but it's been in very pie-bend contexts like Enslave. Captivating Vampire, Olivia Voldaren, and New Blood are all more acceptable precedent, but it should be clear from these examples that when this effect is done in black nowadays it has to be Vampire-related. (3/3) Balance: This is a strong hoser, but almost always weaker than the likes of Nevermore and Pithing Needle, especially with being creature-only.
Creativity - (1.5/3) Uniqueness: Draws on the aforementioned precedents. (3/3) Flavor: Very resonant - definitely where this card excels.
Polish - (3/3) Quality: Looks alright. (2/2) *Main Challenge: Done. (1/2) Subchallenges: It's at least, shall we say, ambiguous whether the speaker of the flavor text was initially evil. This seems like a previously good character turning evil.
Total: 21/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Design - (1.5/3) Appeal: Almost pure Spike. Timmy can sort of get behind the sheer scale of the ****-you here but abhors the idea of stopping anything from happening. Johnny sees a combo dead-end apart from cheating this out and Spike relishes forcing scoops. (3/3) Elegance: Gets its point across pretty bluntly.
Development - (3/3) Viability: Colors seem right, and if this card could even be printed it would have to be mythic. (0/3) Balance: This card might be unprintable at this or any other cost. The excellent card Final Judgment costs 4WW and only does the less degenerate half of this effect. Lethal Vapors costs 2BB, only does the other half, and has an out.
Creativity - (1/3) Uniqueness: Is largely a combination of the cards previously mentioned. (2.5/3) Flavor: The concept of planeswalkers agreeing to no longer summon, as it violates free will, makes sense. However, the name seems like a mismatch. "Oath of Agency" makes it sound like those taking the oath are acquiring agency for themselves, which is of course the opposite of the case of this flavor.
Polish - (3/3) Quality: Fine. (2/2) *Main Challenge: Done. (2/2) Subchallenges: Done, as long as you consider summoning creatures at all to be an evil act.
Total: 18/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Design - (3/3) Appeal: Timmy loves token hordes and unblockability. Johnny loves all those triggers and easier access to saboteur in general. Spike likes a cheap and flexible way to dominate combat. (2.5/3) Elegance: A little wordy and perhaps overly self-synergistic, but gets the point across.
Development - (3/3) Viability: Fairly Chinese-menu blue-black and rare is good (I'd actually rather hate to see this at mythic). (2.5/3) Balance: Maybe not completely overpowered per se, but this is an extremely strong card; as long as you can get one unblocked swing in you can continually generate Zombies to sacrifice and just have an unblockable army for 1UB, or can generate 2/2 tokens every turn instead. Maybe not Vintage/Legacy worthy but would surely see Standard and Commander play in addition to being a total Limited bomb.
Creativity - (2/3) Uniqueness: Draws on quite a few sources but a unique package. (3/3) Flavor: Tells a complete story. Is Dartrok an especially Theran name, though?
Polish - (2/3) Quality: "Dartrok's"; "war's end". (2/2) *Main Challenge: Good. (2/2) Subchallenges: Dartrok was clearly always a bad dude.
Total: 23/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
As the New Year approaches, we resolve to do better for the upcoming year. And like Liliana, we tend to abandon those resolutions pretty quickly.
Main Challenge: Design a card that depicts a character coming to a resolution, taking an oath, or otherwise decisively choosing one path over another.
Subchallenge 1: Your card's rarity is rare or mythic.
Subchallenge 2: Your character was generally evil, selfish, warlike, or otherwise "bad" before this event (...and may still be "bad" afterwards!).
Your card may be Silver Bordered if you'd like.
Please message me about any questions you might have about the challenges. Other than that, have fun, and good luck!
Subchallenge 2: The pun/play-on-words doesn't have to be remotely good!
Design Deadline: All submissions are to be final and submitted by January 4th 11:59 PM EST
Judging Deadline: All judgements are to be final and completed by January 7th 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:
Conntroll
The_Hittite
IcariiFA
A helpful tip for those formatting their cards:
Enchantment [R]
When Broken Faith enters the battlefield, choose a creature card name.
Creatures with the chosen name enter the battlefield under your control.
“All my life I’ve tried to prove myself worthy of your respect. Now I wonder if you were ever worthy of mine.”
Enchantment (R)
Sacrifice a creature: Creatures you control can't be blocked this turn.
Whenever one or more creatures you control attacks and isn't blocked, create a 2/2 black Zombie enchantment creature token.
He sought to sway the gods to favor his men in war. By wars end, his men all bore masks of gold.
(2/3) Appeal: Spike appreciates a Nevermore, and Johnny can pull off some pretty mean things with it (breaking Eureka-esque symmetries, flickering, Dubious Challenge if we're going really awful).
(3/3) Elegance: Sure.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: I think basially-Nevermore makes sense in black as a Memoricide variant, especially when restricted to creatures. And mind control is secondary in black.
(3/3) Balance: Nevermore was totally fine, and the Johnny abuse cases aren't that exploitable.
Creativity -
(1.5/3) Uniqueness: Well I compared this to Nevermore like three times!
(3/3) Flavor: Lovely.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Check.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Check.
(1.5/2) Subchallenges: Hmm. I get what you were going for, an evil lieutenant doing her heel-face turn, but I think that particular point got a little muddled. Maybe you wanted to name the character and her boss (Ob-Nixilis)?
Total: 22/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
(For some reason I instantly thought the character was female, I wonder what that says about me.)
(1.5/3) Appeal: A spikier card. Johnny doesn't mind unblockable, although it's hard to engine it when you only get one zombie a turn.
(3/3) Elegance: Sure.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: A black/blue effect.
(2/3) Balance: I'd like this more if you couldn't sac the produced zombies, because you can end up in situations where the card is "Sac a creature or get in a flying hit, everything has unblockable for the rest of the game." That won't happen every game, but the games where it does are kind of miserable. And the card is strong outside of that ("I play evasive threat, get a 2/2 every turn, get to set up an alpha later on), so it'd happen with some regularity.
Creativity -
(3/3) Uniqueness: Yep.
(2.5/3) Flavor: Love the overall picture, but the king doesn't get to sac his zombified soldiers for more favor! You think Phenax is gonna be like "Oh sweet you killed that zombie like four times now, good job mortal"?
Polish -
(2.5/3) Quality: Path of Bravery suggests this should be the plural "one or more creatures attack and aren't blocked".
(1.5/2) *Main Challenge: I feel this lacks a... strong pivot? He hasn't come to some major resolution in the card; I would have liked to see that decision, the moment he goes "Screw it, I shall stop at nothing to obtain victory, even if it means murdering my army".
(2/2) Subchallenges: Check.
Total: 21/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
(1.5/3) Appeal: Well Spike likes the power level (if not necessarily the effect), and the grief-ier Timmies like the hard lock.
(3/3) Elegance: Yea.
Development -
(2.5/3) Viability: Blue/White does sealing, though this a bit... definitive for a seal. I'd be more appropiate for the color pair if the exiled creatures came back on destruction.
(0/3) Balance: Holy balls, that is WAY too definitive of an answer at 7 mana. Overwhelming Splendor wasn't half as effective of an answer this is, and that was at 8 mana!
Creativity -
(2.5/3) Uniqueness: Super mega Final Judgement.
(3/3) Flavor: How about that old planeswalker flavor!
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Check.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Check.
(1/2) Subchallenges: Well the flavor is we're sending our banished creatures back to where they were summoned/aether (depending on flavor), is that really that evil?
Total: 18.5/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
The_Hittie: 22
IcariiFA: 21
Conntroll: 18.5
(1.5/3) Appeal: Removal and hate cards have a certain base level of appeal to account for. Timmy (.5/1) is more excited than usual. Johnny (.25/1) likes the "gotcha" aspect of the card but curses under his breath that the card says "creature card name". Spike (.75/1) sees it as a de-powered Nevermore sideboard hate card for Standard.
(2.75/3) Elegance: Mechanically clear and understandable and elegant. In practice this is Nevermore, which detracts from its elegance a bit (the ability on the text box is so penalizing that it will never be triggered); I'd have made the same call for the sake of flavor.
Development -
(2.5/3) Viability: Fundamentally viable (I was wrong to score this at a 1 in my first sweep through), but I question the benefit of making this card Black from a mechanical perspective. What architectural problem are we trying to solve here? Does the color of discard need this type of effect? Does the card make sense in Black? Do we want White and Black, in the age of Adanto Vanguard, to become even more identical? I would have liked a slightly new spin on Nevermore better, perhaps the following:
Broken Faith 3RR
Enchantment (R)
When Broken Faith enters the battlefield, choose a creature name.
Creatures with the chosen name enter the battlefield under your control.
Freedom requires choosing your own master.
I'm personally curious what the other judges make of your card. I would have tried to put this sort of effect in Red or Blue. Do you like my take on your card?
(3/3) Balance: Cards like Dispossess are printed enough that I think underpowered hate cards merit a 3.
Creativity -
(1.75/3) Uniqueness: I think the mental energy and creativity that went into designing this card is greater than what we see on the printed card.
(3/3) Flavor: Immersive and flavorful text box!
Polish -
(3/3) Quality:
(2/2) *Main Challenge:
(1/2) Subchallenges: Presumably you did the opposite of the challenge, creating a creature who was loyal and then turned treasonous.
Total: 20.5/25
(2.25/3) Appeal: A broadly appealing card, and to all psychologies and ways of approaching the game. Timmy (.75/1) likes making his creatures unblockable. Johnny (.75/1) wants to look for ways to "break" this card. Spike (.75/1) perceives that the card can be leveraged competitively for value.
(2.5/3) Elegance: crystal clear. Flavor of card and the expectations it creates in the reader's mind will not match gameplay.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: Appropriate colors, the card builds on top of itself without being limited by itself and toppling over in complexity.
(1.5/3) Balance: Similar to your mistletoe card from last round, I think this card needs a slight tweak to be balanced (and that tweak makes a world of difference). You either need to make it read: "Sacrifice a non-token creature:..." or "Sacrifice a creature: Target creature can't be blocked...". As written you make an initial investment of sacrificing one creature and then all of your creatures become unblockable for the rest of the game.
Creativity -
(3/3) Uniqueness: Very! Excellent entry.
(3/3) Flavor: I like the flavor. A pirate-vibe to the card with Nyx callbacks. The flavor text really helps you understand the card.
Polish -
(2.75/3) Quality: Get that possessive apostraphe in there!
(1/2) *Main Challenge: This doesn't show a crossroads decision or the coming to a resolution - it shows the desires and resolve of a particular character, a desire and resolve that could have always been with that character.
(2/2) Subchallenges:
Total: 21/25
(1.75/3) Appeal: Timmy (.5/1) thinks it is powerful even if this is not his cup of tea. I can see how Johnny (.75/1) might like to lock people out of the game. Spike (.5/1) most certainly likes this, albeit for all the wrong reasons.
(2.5/3) Elegance: From the standpoint of mechanical elegance, you've done a good job. You've given control players a very particular tool that fulfills a certain purpose. I think cards that are supremely elegant behave more like swiss army knives than hammers or screw-drivers (i.e. they have some hidden depth or wider applicability than what you see upon a first read), but your card is definitely elegant.
Development -
(1.5/3) Viability: The reason this card isn't viable is largely due to balance issues. I'm taking off points here for 2 reasons. (1) the card could be mono-white or white-black. Mechanically blue is contributing nothing. Flavorfully blue is contributing nothing. I wouldn't take off for a single blue mana symbol because there are often reasons to include that beyond what a judge might see, but two blue mana symbols strikes me as beyond the pale. (2) You're creating an absolute and total answer to the main axis along which Magic is played. Answers, like threats, should be softer. An environment can't be balanced if hard, absolute, final answers like this existed.
(.5/3) Balance: At minimum this should cost 9. At 7 you're destroying the ability for Standard to have midrange decks in it. The concept is more repugnant than the reality. I feel like the rubric is double-penalizing you here, since the reason it's not balanced is fundamentally tied to the reason it's not viable - it's too total and absolute of an answer to the fundamental axis of Magic gameplay. I'm quite critical when Wizards prints cards like Back to Nature after an enchantment block - total answers are bad for the game and for format diversity. Release the Gremlins is the appropriate power level for a hate card in my opinion.
Creativity -
(1.25/3) Uniqueness:
(2/3) Flavor:[Revised up]. I don't think many will like the flavor of the card as a whole. The flavor text is strange. Yes, you're no longer inhibiting others freedom when you slaughter them. Go read the opening of Plato's Euthydemus. You'll get a kick out of it.
Question: is the flavor text supposed to be funny? Am I being too serious? Are we supposed to get a Joker vibe?
Polish -
(3/3) Quality:
(2/2) *Main Challenge:
(2/2) Subchallenges: Turning evil? Check!
Total: 16.5/25
The_Hittite: 20.5
Conntroll: 16.5
(2.5/3) Appeal: Not quite a big enough effect for Timmy necessarily but he does like stealing his opponent's best stuff. Johnny can think of plenty of combos and Spike likes a flexible hoser.
(3/3) Elegance: Highly elegant.
Development -
(2/3) Viability: Rare looks right. I really question this being black rather than blue, though. I know black has gotten control steal in the past, but it's been in very pie-bend contexts like Enslave. Captivating Vampire, Olivia Voldaren, and New Blood are all more acceptable precedent, but it should be clear from these examples that when this effect is done in black nowadays it has to be Vampire-related.
(3/3) Balance: This is a strong hoser, but almost always weaker than the likes of Nevermore and Pithing Needle, especially with being creature-only.
Creativity -
(1.5/3) Uniqueness: Draws on the aforementioned precedents.
(3/3) Flavor: Very resonant - definitely where this card excels.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Looks alright.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Done.
(1/2) Subchallenges: It's at least, shall we say, ambiguous whether the speaker of the flavor text was initially evil. This seems like a previously good character turning evil.
Total: 21/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
(1.5/3) Appeal: Almost pure Spike. Timmy can sort of get behind the sheer scale of the ****-you here but abhors the idea of stopping anything from happening. Johnny sees a combo dead-end apart from cheating this out and Spike relishes forcing scoops.
(3/3) Elegance: Gets its point across pretty bluntly.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: Colors seem right, and if this card could even be printed it would have to be mythic.
(0/3) Balance: This card might be unprintable at this or any other cost. The excellent card Final Judgment costs 4WW and only does the less degenerate half of this effect. Lethal Vapors costs 2BB, only does the other half, and has an out.
Creativity -
(1/3) Uniqueness: Is largely a combination of the cards previously mentioned.
(2.5/3) Flavor: The concept of planeswalkers agreeing to no longer summon, as it violates free will, makes sense. However, the name seems like a mismatch. "Oath of Agency" makes it sound like those taking the oath are acquiring agency for themselves, which is of course the opposite of the case of this flavor.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Fine.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Done.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Done, as long as you consider summoning creatures at all to be an evil act.
Total: 18/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
(3/3) Appeal: Timmy loves token hordes and unblockability. Johnny loves all those triggers and easier access to saboteur in general. Spike likes a cheap and flexible way to dominate combat.
(2.5/3) Elegance: A little wordy and perhaps overly self-synergistic, but gets the point across.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: Fairly Chinese-menu blue-black and rare is good (I'd actually rather hate to see this at mythic).
(2.5/3) Balance: Maybe not completely overpowered per se, but this is an extremely strong card; as long as you can get one unblocked swing in you can continually generate Zombies to sacrifice and just have an unblockable army for 1UB, or can generate 2/2 tokens every turn instead. Maybe not Vintage/Legacy worthy but would surely see Standard and Commander play in addition to being a total Limited bomb.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: Draws on quite a few sources but a unique package.
(3/3) Flavor: Tells a complete story. Is Dartrok an especially Theran name, though?
Polish -
(2/3) Quality: "Dartrok's"; "war's end".
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Good.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Dartrok was clearly always a bad dude.
Total: 23/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝