Fiery SorcererRR
Creature - Wizard Rogue (U)
When Fiery Sorcerer enters the battlefield, you may have it deal 4 damage to target creature or player. If so, target opponent gains control of it. He will help defeat your enemies, even if he eventually falls into the hands of them.
2/1
Worldweft Ambassador 2GG
Creature - Elemental Druid (U) T: Target creature you control becomes a colorless land with a basic land type of your choice until end of turn. (It's not a creature while it's a land.) "As I came to be among you, so you will come to be among us."
2/4
Malfex1BB
Legendary Creature - Horror {R}
At the beginning of each opponent's upkeep, that player loses 1 life and puts a -1/-1 counter on a creature he or she controls. It revels in making the strong realize they aren't.
3/3
Deepstone HeraldRW
Creature - Dwarf Knight (r)
Each player who controls the most lands or is tied for controlling the most lands can't draw cards. "Our people have learned, through a thousand years of plight and woe, to subsist on as low amount of resourses as possible. It is time we teach the decadent overworlders this lesson."
2/1
Kyrwood Peacemongers1GG
Creature - Dryad Merchant(U)
When Kyrwood Peacemongers enters the battlefield, offer an opponent a boon. (Exile the top card of your library face up. The receiving player may cast non-land cards exiled this way using mana as though it were any color.) Contract - Whenever an opponent casts a boon from you, gain 4 life.
3/4
Garron the Guardian 5WR
Legendary Creature - Hound (R)
Garron the Guardian can block any number of creatures as long as it is untapped.
Garron the Guardian can't be blocked except by two or more creatures.
5/6
Check out "The Lion's Lair", the article series where I specifically talk about custom card design with the intent to help you get better at it. The article index is always updated with the latest content.
Note - When I say "#N in MOQX", it means: this is the mistake number N in my "Mark of Quality, part X" article.
Design/development: I mentally divide points equally among subsections, assign them, then add them up.
Challenges: what counts is always the letter of the law.
Quality: half a point deducted for any error in templating, wording, spelling, or grammar, no matter how little they may be; a whole point for particularly serious errors.
No complaints unless I got something objectively wrong.
Noble Nymph
Enchantment Creature - Nymph (R)
Bestow 1G(If you cast this card for its bestow cost, it's an Aura spell with enchant creature. It becomes a creature again if it's not attached to a creature.)
Enchanted creature gets +1/+1. T: Add G to your mana pool. (Auras can T as soon as they come under your control.)
1/1
Design (7/10) Creativity – Auras that tap appear only in Future Sight in one or two cards at maximum if my memory serves, so it's still quite original. Elegance – Once you learn that auras don't tap when the enchanted creature taps, which is something every Magic player should really learn, you're good. Potential – Timmy doesn't care. Johnny may try to use it but with uncertain results. Spike loves this as a mana accelerator that doubles as creature pumping.
Development (7/10) Viability – Everything is in color. Enchantments that tap have only been in Future Sight (Flowstone Embrace and Second Wind are Auras and Witch's Mist is a global enchantment), and are considered one of those unwritten rules that should not be broken in Magic design. I like very much the teaching value in this kind of spell, though, in that they can be useful to teach newer or less experienced players that Auras do NOT tap when enchanted permanent is tapped. This is a mistake that I see way too many players make in gameplay, and I always like to correct it when I'm involved in the game. But despite the fact that I like very much what you did here, as a judge I have to take into account that the unwritten convention is broken here. At first glance, it looks like this could easily be uncommon, unless the gameplay of a tapping Aura proves too confusing in playtest to justify shifting this to a rare. Balance – Costs look right. Elvish Mystic costs one mana, and I could see an Aura like this that leaves behind a Mystic costing two mana. Certainly playable in limited, at least as a Mystic, in constructed it may be playable in ramp decks. Creative Writing – Name is fine. No room for flavor text.
Polish Challenge (2/2) – Both met. Quality (3/3) – All good here.
Chartrail Dragon4RR
Creature - Dragon (R)
Flying
Wither (This deals damage to creatures in the form of -1/-1 counters.)
At the beginning of your upkeep, Chartrail Dragon deals 2 damage to each creature you don't control. Dragonfire burns continue to sear flesh and scorch the earth long after the monster has gone.
6/6
Design (7/10) Creativity – All the single parts have been done before, just not together. Elegance – You have to understand that the damage on upkeep is dealt as -1/-1 counters, which may not be obvious to less experienced players. Once you get that, you're good. Potential – Timmy loves this card. Johnny doesn't see many uses for it beside attacking. This is probably powerful enough for Spike to care.
Development (10/10) Viability – Everything is in color and rarity looks right. This doesn't feel mythic but can't be less than a rare, both because of size and because of the interaction between wither and the triggered ability. Balance – The mana cost looks fine, if not a bit aggressive for a 6/6 with upside in red. Yes, Inferno Titan and Soul of Shandalar exist, but they're more of an exception than the rule, and they are mythic. Absolute limited bomb. I can also see this in constructed. Creative Writing – All good here.
Polish Challenge (1/2) – Subchallenge 1 met. Subchallenge 2 NOT met: this has flying, which is an evergreen keyword. Quality (2.5/3) – Reminder text should be in italics (#46 in MOQ2, half a point deducted).
Custodian of Lost Asdun1RR
Creature-Spirit [M]
Whenever Custodian of Lost Asdun or another nontoken creature enters the battlefield under your control, you may seek an instant or sorcery. If you succeed, until end of turn, you may cast nonland cards in your hand that share a name with the revealed card without paying their mana cost. (Reveal the top card of your library. If it's an instant or sorcery, you may put it into your hand. Otherwise, put it into your graveyard.)
3/3
Design (8.5/10) Creativity – Using a new keyword is kind of a guaranteed way to get full points here. Elegance – Quite wordy, but other than that it's good. Potential – Timmy would probably like this to be even bigger. Johnny will gladly use seek to look for combo pieces, and Spike to get card advantage, which is a very rare thing in red.
Development (6.5/10) Viability – A kind of conditional draw ability in red is interesting, I can see this playing in the same mechanical space as the impulsive draw ability recently added to red. It's also good that it's limited to instant and sorceries, both because you can seek burn spells this way, and because those are the two card types red normally most interacts with, so they feel the natural choice for a limitation to the draw, which is necessary because red doesn't get straight up card advantage. Obviously, "seek" and "succeed" need to be defined in the rules, but I'm sure that's implicit in your wording. Mechanically this doesn't feel like a mythic to me, but its power level may very well require this to be one, given that this triggers for any nontoken creature of yours, so it can potentially give you a huge card advantage, way more than red currently gets or is supposed to get. Balance – A three mana 3/3 in red definitely pushes the boundaries, but at mythic I can accept it. I certainly wouldn't at any other rarity. I also like that in practice you will cast the same instant or sorcery that you just revealed if you succeed, even if the wording needed to get that effect is necessarily quite convoluted and complicated. And nonetheless, you get to cast it for free and also cast eventual multiples you have in your hand for free. That's very strong, especially thinking of burn spells. Good that this is a mythic, otherwise it could have easily been too much. Mythics need to be splashy after all. Playable in all formats, as it gives some much needed card advantage to red, even if conditionally. Creative Writing – Name is fine. No room for flavor text.
Polish Challenge (2/2) – Both met. Quality (3/3) – All good here.
Gravedancer Hag3B
Creature - Hag (R)
If a creature card would be returned from your graveyard to your hand, put it onto the battlefield instead of putting it into your hand. "I too would flee my bed if that thing were to dance around it."
-Calydd, kithkin farmer
2/2
Design (10/10) Creativity – I can't remember anything like this already existing. The effect is very original. Full points here. Elegance – All good here. Potential – Timmy likes the action in this and that he can easily return big beasts to the battlefield with this. Johnny loves all the shenanigans he can do with this. Spike loves the high power level of this.
Development (7.5/10) Viability – Both returning creatures from graveyard to hand and to the battlefield is black, so the ability must be black. It would have felt wrong in any other color. This is fine at rare, but I could also see this as a mythic, both for the unicity of the effect and for the power level. Balance – Disentomb becomes Zombify. This is huge, in fact there's a three mana difference between those, and that's without keeping into account the fact that reanimation spells nowadays tend to cost at least five mana. I know this is strange to say for a four mana 2/2, but this can even look a bit undercosted. One thing I would have liked for sure is more black mana symbols in the mana cost. The ability is heavy black, and that would have also probably helped balance the card's power level. I'm not sure about the playability in limited. This card seems made for constructed, in particular as a part of an infinite reanimation engine. That's why Johnny loves it. Creative Writing – All good here.
Polish Challenge (2/2) – Both met. Quality (3/3) – All good here.
Worldweft Ambassador 2GG
Creature - Elemental Druid (U) T: Target creature you control becomes a colorless land with a basic land type of your choice until end of turn. (It's not a creature while it's a land.) "As I came to be among you, so you will come to be among us."
2/4
Design (8/10) Creativity – Magic is full of lands turning into creatures, but this is the exact contrary of that, and I can't remember anything like this before. Full points here. Elegance – The activated ability is not the most intuitive thing. Other than that, it's good. Potential – I don't think Timmy would care too much about this. Johnny absolutely loves this card. Spike may use it as pseudo-removal on opposing creatures, or as an extreme measure against color screw (not mana screw in general because you still need to already have the four mana to cast this).
Development (7.5/10) Viability – Turning a creature into a land feels very green. It may be confusing enough of an effect, though, to require being rare, especially for new or less experienced players. Keep in mind, for example, that you can still activate the ability during combat to save a creature of yours from death, and this can both give this card some versatility, giving it additional uses that may not be that immediate to see (a positive), and easily lead to feel bad moments on the other side of the table (a negative). But that's just a minor issue in the end, the card could also be just fine as it is. Balance – The mana cost looks reasonable. I don't think a mana cost is needed for the ability, as I don't see a way you could use it to go infinite or something like that. If it could target opposing creature a mana cost would have surely been necessary, because than it would function as pseudo-removal, but as it is, only being able to target your own creatures, the lack of a mana cost to activate the ability doesn't worry me too much. Playable in limited, but I'm not sure about constructed. Creative Writing – All good here.
Polish Challenge (2/2) – Both met. Quality (3/3) – I recommend formatting cards as specified in the CCC forum rules. In this particular case, the name should be bold, but I'm not deducting points for this because it's just a matter of formatting.
Minotaur Hammertosser3R
Creature - Minotaur (U) R, T, Sacrifice an Equipment attached to Minotaur Hammertosser: Minotaur Hammertosser deals damage equal to its power to target creature or player. No more hammers? Find some, or I'll throw YOU at them! -- Barush, minotaur chieftain
2/2
Design (7/10) Creativity – I can't remember any existing cards requiring the sacrifice of Equipment as a cost in an activated ability. Elegance – The damage this deals is equal to the power it has after you sacrifice the Equipment, because it checks on resolution, and that's not very intuitive. Potential – Timmy is a bit disappointed that he has to make the creature weaker to use its ability. Johnny may like the challenge of trying to get the best out of the activated ability. I think this costs too much mana for Spike to care.
Development (8/10) Viability – Usually it's white that interacts with Equipment, but sacrificing them can feel red, especially since red often sacrifices artifacts as an additional cost. Beside that, the effect is clearly red, so colorwise this card is fine anyway. Rarity feels right too. Balance – Costs look fine. Playable in limited, especially if this is in an artifact block, but I don't see this in constructed. Creative Writing – All good here. I personally love the flavor of this card. The flavor text in particular is very good because of its irony.
Polish Challenge (2/2) – Both met. Quality (2/3) – The flavor text should be between quotation marks (#12 in MOQ1, half a point deducted), and the attribution should be in a separate line (#12 in MOQ1, half a point deducted).
Malfex1BB
Legendary Creature - Horror {R}
At the beginning of each opponent's upkeep, that player loses 1 life and puts a -1/-1 counter on a creature he or she controls. It revels in making the strong realize they aren't.
3/3
Design (8/10) Creativity – Nothing in this card is particularly new. Everything has been done before. Elegance – I would have expected this to target the creature it puts the -1/-1 counter on, but other than that it's good. Potential – Just big enough for Timmy to care, while also giving him a great visual feedback. Maybe Johnny could try to find way to copy and/or recur the trigger to take advantage of the life loss. I think this is strong enough for Spike to at least try to use it.
Development (9/10) Viability – Everything is in color and rarity looks right. This doesn't feel mythic mechanically, despite being a legendary creature. Balance – Cost looks fine. A 3/3 for three mana in black looks quite strong, and here we have it with additional upside too, but Blood-Chin Fanatic just came out in DTK after all. Surely playable in limited, it may be playable in constructed but just in specific decks caring about -1/-1 counters or such. Very good in multiplayer, where if not answered it will cause a lot of life to be lost and -1/-1 counters to be added in each single turn cycle. Creative Writing – All good here.
Polish Challenge (2/2) – Both met. Quality (2.5/3) – You are always the one to put counters on permanent, even if the counters are negative and even if you're putting them on a permanent an opponent controls. So, this should say "…that player loses 1 life. Put a -1/-1 counter on a creature that player controls (add 'of his or her choice' here if you want the opponent to choose which creature gets the counter)." (half a point deducted).
MCC - Winner (6): Oct 2014, Apr Nov 2017, Jan 2018, Apr Jun 2019 || Host (15): Dec 2014, Apr Jul Aug Dec 2015, Mar Jul Aug Oct 2016, Feb Jul 2017, Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) || Judge (34): every month from Nov 2014 to Nov 2016 except Oct 2015, every month from Feb to Jul 2017 except Apr 2017, then Oct 2017, May Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) CCL - Winner (3): Jul 2016 (tied with Flatline), May 2017, Jul 2019 (last one here) || Host (5): Feb 2015, Mar Apr May Jun 2016 DCC - Winner (1): Mar 2015 (tied with Piar) || Host (3): May Oct 2015, Jan 2016
• The two public custom sets I've been part a part of the design team for: "Brotherhood of Ormos" - Blog post with all info - set thread - design skeleton / card list || "Extinctia: Homo Evanuit" - Blog post with all info - set thread - card list spreadsheet
• "The Lion's Lair", my article series about MTG and custom card design in particular. Latest article here. Here is the article index.Rather outdated by now, and based on the old MCC rubric, but I'm leaving this here for anybody that might be interested anyway.
• My only public attempt at being a writer: the story of my Leonin custom planeswalker Jeff Lionheart. (I have a very big one that I'm working on right now but that's private for now, and I don't know if I will ever actually publish it, and I also have ideas for multiple future ones, including one where I'm going to reprise Jeff.)
Design:
Creativity – Something that lets an opponent control you. What a concept.
Elegance – No problems here.
Potential – Timmy and Spike love this.
9/10.
Development:
Viability – No problems here.
Balance – Black has cards like Entomb and Reanimate, allowing you to get it on the second turn (first turn if you include Dark Ritual.) So I think it's best that it's either easier to block or it has the Darksteel Colossus ability of getting shuffled into your library when it's put into your graveyard.
Creative Writing – No problems here.
7/10
Polish:
Challenges – Both met.
Quality – It should be like this:
Xiax, Bane of Sanity can't be blocked and attacks each turn if able.
At the beginning of your upkeep, choose an opponent. That player controls you this turn.
3/5
Total: 19/25
Design:
Creativity – A one-sided Oppression with legs.
Elegance – No problems here.
Potential – Johnny would play with it. Spike might play with it.
8/10.
Development:
Viability – No problems here.
Balance – It costs the same as Oppression. That's okay, but I think making it a 4/2 unblockable is a bit much, especially in a 1v1 match. Either the creature's power should be lower or the bonus should be lower.
Creative Writing – No problems here.
9/10
Polish:
Challenges – Both met.
Quality – I am certain the last line should read “As long as each opponent has no cards in hand, CARDNAME gets +2/+0 and can't be blocked.”
4/5
Total: 21/25
Design:
Creativity – The idea of you choosing who to sacrifice for your opponent in new.
Elegance – No problems here.
Potential – This is definitely a Spike card.
8/10.
Development:
Viability – I think this should be a mythic rare.
Balance – Small enough to die to Shock et al. It makes sense to make the Innocent Blood ability cost that high. I think it's good.
Creative Writing – No problems here.
9/10
Polish:
Challenges – Both met.
Quality – I think the first line should read “If an opponent would sacrifice a creature, that player sacrifices a creature of your choice instead.”
4/5
Total: 21/25
Design:
Creativity – Consistent with other Masticores.
Elegance – No problems here.
Potential – Timmy might see potential, as does Johnny. Spike might play with it depending on the circumstances.
9/10.
Development:
Viability – No problems here.
Balance – Red would not have a 5/5 for five mana without a drawback unless it's a mythic rare. It seems good.
Creative Writing – I don't know if they'd make a non-artifact Masticore, but I like the flavour.
9/10
Polish:
Challenges – Both met.
Quality – No problems here.
5/5
Total: 23/25
Design:
Creativity – Interesting condition for casting this. The second line is similar to Lotus Vale.
Elegance – No problems here.
Potential – Johnny might find a way to break it. Timmy might not like the requirements.
7.5/10.
Development:
Viability – I don't think the second part would be worded like that of Lotus Vale. I'm certain that, for the sake of simplicity, it would be “When CARDNAME enters the battlefield, sacrifice it unless you sacrifice six Islands.” Either way, you're losing six Islands.
Balance – Unless your opponent's also playing blue, you'll need twelve Islands to get this into play. This makes your card almost impossible to play in limited. I think that one drawback is enough.
Creative Writing – No problems here.
7/10
Polish:
Challenges – Both met.
Quality – I think the first line shoule be “Cast CARDNAME only if there are six or more Islands on the battlefield.” As for the second part, see Viability.
4/5
Total: 18.5/25
Design:
Creativity – I thought there was something similar, but I was wrong.
Elegance – No problems here.
Potential – Spike will play with it. Timmy might use it to play his big spells.
9/10.
Development:
Viability – I think this should be rare.
Balance – It would take a while to build up (without proliferating, anyway,) so I like it as is.
Creative Writing – Some flavour text would have been nice. I'm sure there would be room for it.
8/10
Polish:
Challenges – Both met.
Quality – No problems here.
5/5
Total: 22/25
Design (7/10): Creativity: Yea, this card is really something else. As in not anything like any other card. Elegance: This is definitely one of the harder cards to wrap your head around. I imagine this would be difficult for most new players to completely understand what's going on with this card. Another issue is that the 0/0 looks pretty unappealing on the card, though this is a minor aesthetic nitpick. Potential: You hear that? It's the sound of Johnny salivating over this card.
Development (8/10): Viability: Let's start with color. Obviously black is the card that cares about creatures in the graveyard. However, white is the color that most cares about permanents, while the transforming into creatures appears all over the place (mostly in blue with artifacts, never in red). So color is really hard to pin down with this card. Mono-black is OK, but I don't think it's the best fit for this card. I would probably prefer blue/black, since that color combo feels like it would mess the most with dead things.
Onto rules issues. Surprisingly, I don't see too much wrong with this card ruleswise. There might be something that I'm missing, but overall this seems like a pretty good way to make all of your permanents reanimateable. Balance: This really does depend on the cards around it. For example, this card seems decent in a format with Exhume and Nicol Bolas, Planeswalker, but a format like that existing is pretty unlikely. This seems like it's much more for the casual tables, where this can do the pretty fun stuff, but not do anything too broken. My big concern is the 0/0 P/T, since that could cause some power issues with things like Alesha, Who Smiles at Death or Reveillark, where the P/T clause is a drawback. I think P/T equal to CMC would be better. Creative Writing: I'm not sure I like the card being named in flavor text but not in the card name itself, but for the most part I really like the creative side of this.
Polish: Challenge (2/2): Good. Quality (3/3): As stated above, I do think this is a pretty good template for never having been done before.
Total: 20/25
Design (5/10): Creativity: The 2-brid and artifact-ness switch it up a little bit, but this is pretty much just Phyrexian Gargantua. Elegance: The card itself is pretty clean and simple. The abilities don't really connect to the flavor too much, and there's really not much of a reason for this to be an artifact. Potential: The effect of drawing cards is nice, especially when attached to a creature, so some people will want this sort of effect.
Development (6.5/10): Viability: There's very little distinction between 2-brid and mono-colored, so I don't really see a reason why this mana cost wouldn't be fine. Balance: This is pretty much a card that is designed to be interesting for limited, which this probably would be. There's very little chance a constructed deck would want this unless they could consistently cast this for 4 mana, in which case it would have a chance of being playable. Creative Writing: The lack of flavor text really hurts this card, as I feel the name could use the help by giving context to the card. Otherwise it is pretty generic and flavorless.
Design (7.5/10): Creativity: Nothing too crazy, just a Fleshbag Marauder with undying, though it is an interesting twist to the card. Elegance: For essentially just adding a word to a card that's already been created, it actually adds a lot of depth to the card. It's interesting that this card can be a one-sided Barter in Blood or can be a good sac outlet that leaves behind a 3/2. I feel like this card would be interesting to play with. Potential: Sac outlets are always useful, as are creatures with good ETB effects, so there's plenty of potential here.
Development (6/10): Viability: Definitely black. From a complexity standpoint, all the cards it resembles are uncommon. Adding the undying might be enough to bump it up to rare, especially given it's power level. Balance: Barter in Blood is 4 mana and hits everyone, and this is the same mana cost, is one-sided, and can be used in various other ways. This is definitely too powerful at 4. Even at 5 I might be a little bit weary. Creative Writing: "Mortiferous" sure is a word. Name and flavor text are both good and fit pretty well with the card.
Design (8.5/10): Creativity: Utopia Tree with expand. The new ability twist is nice, though it does feel a bit like a land version of cascade. Elegance: The expand ability does a very good job of capturing the "green mana dork" feel that this card should be going for. The ability is a pretty interesting contrast between itself and something like Sylvan Ranger as you give away the ability to search for a land for the ability to hit a nonbasic you may want. Potential: Mana dorks are always useful, and this one has the upside of replacing itself with a land. Plenty of uses for this.
Development (6.5/10): Viability: Birds of Paradise type cards are always rare, so this is fine. Balance: For comparison, let's look at Sylvan Caryatid, a very good constructed card. If you asked most players, I would guess that they would willing to trade off hexproof for the ability for a card to replace itself. Basically, I'm saying this is a bit on the pushed side. It's not so pushed that it would warp formats, as the card that replaces it is always a land, but this is a bit more powerful than I would be comfortable with. Creative Writing: I think this could fit a line of flavor text, but the overall feel of the card still comes through. "Knower" in the name feels a bit silly, though.
Design (8/10): Creativity: The "discard hand then draw" ability has been seen before (Dangerous Wager and such), but never on a creature like this. Elegance: This is certainly an interesting ability drawback-wise, since it is a very really drawback until you can empty out your hand, at which point it becomes a plus. It's a very simple ability, but one that has a lot of play to it. Potential: Wheels are pretty popular, although this doesn't quite have the explosiveness that other popular wheel effects have (a la Wheel of Fortune). Still, this feels like a bit of a Johnny/Spike card, so there's some potential.
Development (6/10): Viability: The ability isn't all that complex, but for uniqueness I think this is fine at rare. Red is obviously correct. Balance: I think this card would come up closer to the boundaries of playability if it had something to help it in combat. This card really feels like it needs haste or first strike or something to really be able to get in for damage. As it is, the body is probably just not good enough for this to be very playable. Creative Writing: I don't like that you made this a weird, since that is something that both feels and has been constrained to U/R. Other then that the name and flavor text are fine.
Design (8/10): Creativity: Very unique effect, plays off of the design space opened up by Humble Defector. Elegance: The flavor of the ability is kind of weird. It's like he can help you only if he's helping your opponent, which seems strange to me. This is lessened by the fact that this sort of ability is cool and has some very nice gameplay to it. Potential: While the ability probably isn't quite as powerful as Humble Defector, it still brings out the Johnny juices of trying to abuse this without your opponent getting the benefit.
Development (6.5/10): Viability: Nothing to say here, everything looks fine. Balance: I really just want this to be a 3/1. I feel like a 2/1 body is so negligible most of the time that it's usual going to be better to get the 4 damage. Either way, I don't think this would do anything in constructed, and in limited it would be good because any removal is good removal. Creative Writing: The flavor text makes him sound kind of white with all the self-sacrifice, and the name doesn't really fit the fact that he switches controller.
Polish: Challenge (2/2): Good. Quality (2.5/3): Should be "if you do", not "if so".
Total: 19/25
Design (5.5/10): Creativity: Abilities are pretty unique, so that's good. Elegance: I'm not a big fan of an ability word that references a non-evergreen keyword. I think it would be fine just to say "Whenever an opponent casts a spell you own" or something like that. Also, the way the boon ability is worded is kind of odd. The "offer an opponent" part just seems out of place in a games that's essentially about killing one another. There's really nothing wrong with the mechanic itself, just the way it's implemented seems bad to me. Potential: I don't know who this card really appeals to other than limited Spikes. Timmies don't like the drawback, and there's no combo potential for Johnny.
Development (7/10): Viability: Seems fine. Balance: As previously stated, this really is a card just for limited. In constructed formats there are bigger creatures without drawback. In limited this is good because a 3/4 for 3 mana is always good and the drawback shouldn't be too bad, especially since there is a very good chance the card will just be a land. Creative Writing: I would like a small line of flavor text. Dryad Merchant is an odd creature type, although it seems fine based on what the card does. Name seems good.
Creature - Wizard Rogue (U)
When Fiery Sorcerer enters the battlefield, you may have it deal 4 damage to target creature or player. If so, target opponent gains control of it.
He will help defeat your enemies, even if he eventually falls into the hands of them.
2/1
Modern
UBR Grixis Control
U Merfolk
Pauper
U Mono U Delver
Ancestral Visions is freed
Creature - Ooze Plant (U)
t: Put a growth counter on Mana Slime, then add G to your mana pool for each growth counter on Mana Slime.
1/1
Creature - Elemental Druid (U)
T: Target creature you control becomes a colorless land with a basic land type of your choice until end of turn. (It's not a creature while it's a land.)
"As I came to be among you, so you will come to be among us."
2/4
Legendary Creature - Horror {R}
At the beginning of each opponent's upkeep, that player loses 1 life and puts a -1/-1 counter on a creature he or she controls.
It revels in making the strong realize they aren't.
3/3
(CubeTutor & MTGS)
360 Peasant Cube!
Custom Cube
RWU Miracles RWU
Creature - Dwarf Knight (r)
Each player who controls the most lands or is tied for controlling the most lands can't draw cards.
"Our people have learned, through a thousand years of plight and woe, to subsist on as low amount of resourses as possible. It is time we teach the decadent overworlders this lesson."
2/1
Creature - Dryad Merchant(U)
When Kyrwood Peacemongers enters the battlefield, offer an opponent a boon. (Exile the top card of your library face up. The receiving player may cast non-land cards exiled this way using mana as though it were any color.)
Contract - Whenever an opponent casts a boon from you, gain 4 life.
3/4
Legendary Creature - Hound (R)
Garron the Guardian can block any number of creatures as long as it is untapped.
Garron the Guardian can't be blocked except by two or more creatures.
5/6
There was once [The Pack], but no more.
Check out "The Lion's Lair", the article series where I specifically talk about custom card design with the intent to help you get better at it. The article index is always updated with the latest content.
Note - When I say "#N in MOQX", it means: this is the mistake number N in my "Mark of Quality, part X" article.
Design/development: I mentally divide points equally among subsections, assign them, then add them up.
Challenges: what counts is always the letter of the law.
Quality: half a point deducted for any error in templating, wording, spelling, or grammar, no matter how little they may be; a whole point for particularly serious errors.
No complaints unless I got something objectively wrong.
Piar
Design (7/10)
Creativity – Auras that tap appear only in Future Sight in one or two cards at maximum if my memory serves, so it's still quite original.
Elegance – Once you learn that auras don't tap when the enchanted creature taps, which is something every Magic player should really learn, you're good.
Potential – Timmy doesn't care. Johnny may try to use it but with uncertain results. Spike loves this as a mana accelerator that doubles as creature pumping.
Development (7/10)
Viability – Everything is in color. Enchantments that tap have only been in Future Sight (Flowstone Embrace and Second Wind are Auras and Witch's Mist is a global enchantment), and are considered one of those unwritten rules that should not be broken in Magic design. I like very much the teaching value in this kind of spell, though, in that they can be useful to teach newer or less experienced players that Auras do NOT tap when enchanted permanent is tapped. This is a mistake that I see way too many players make in gameplay, and I always like to correct it when I'm involved in the game. But despite the fact that I like very much what you did here, as a judge I have to take into account that the unwritten convention is broken here. At first glance, it looks like this could easily be uncommon, unless the gameplay of a tapping Aura proves too confusing in playtest to justify shifting this to a rare.
Balance – Costs look right. Elvish Mystic costs one mana, and I could see an Aura like this that leaves behind a Mystic costing two mana. Certainly playable in limited, at least as a Mystic, in constructed it may be playable in ramp decks.
Creative Writing – Name is fine. No room for flavor text.
Polish
Challenge (2/2) – Both met.
Quality (3/3) – All good here.
Total: 19/25
Design (7/10)
Creativity – All the single parts have been done before, just not together.
Elegance – You have to understand that the damage on upkeep is dealt as -1/-1 counters, which may not be obvious to less experienced players. Once you get that, you're good.
Potential – Timmy loves this card. Johnny doesn't see many uses for it beside attacking. This is probably powerful enough for Spike to care.
Development (10/10)
Viability – Everything is in color and rarity looks right. This doesn't feel mythic but can't be less than a rare, both because of size and because of the interaction between wither and the triggered ability.
Balance – The mana cost looks fine, if not a bit aggressive for a 6/6 with upside in red. Yes, Inferno Titan and Soul of Shandalar exist, but they're more of an exception than the rule, and they are mythic. Absolute limited bomb. I can also see this in constructed.
Creative Writing – All good here.
Polish
Challenge (1/2) – Subchallenge 1 met. Subchallenge 2 NOT met: this has flying, which is an evergreen keyword.
Quality (2.5/3) – Reminder text should be in italics (#46 in MOQ2, half a point deducted).
Total: 20.5/25
Design (8.5/10)
Creativity – Using a new keyword is kind of a guaranteed way to get full points here.
Elegance – Quite wordy, but other than that it's good.
Potential – Timmy would probably like this to be even bigger. Johnny will gladly use seek to look for combo pieces, and Spike to get card advantage, which is a very rare thing in red.
Development (6.5/10)
Viability – A kind of conditional draw ability in red is interesting, I can see this playing in the same mechanical space as the impulsive draw ability recently added to red. It's also good that it's limited to instant and sorceries, both because you can seek burn spells this way, and because those are the two card types red normally most interacts with, so they feel the natural choice for a limitation to the draw, which is necessary because red doesn't get straight up card advantage. Obviously, "seek" and "succeed" need to be defined in the rules, but I'm sure that's implicit in your wording. Mechanically this doesn't feel like a mythic to me, but its power level may very well require this to be one, given that this triggers for any nontoken creature of yours, so it can potentially give you a huge card advantage, way more than red currently gets or is supposed to get.
Balance – A three mana 3/3 in red definitely pushes the boundaries, but at mythic I can accept it. I certainly wouldn't at any other rarity. I also like that in practice you will cast the same instant or sorcery that you just revealed if you succeed, even if the wording needed to get that effect is necessarily quite convoluted and complicated. And nonetheless, you get to cast it for free and also cast eventual multiples you have in your hand for free. That's very strong, especially thinking of burn spells. Good that this is a mythic, otherwise it could have easily been too much. Mythics need to be splashy after all. Playable in all formats, as it gives some much needed card advantage to red, even if conditionally.
Creative Writing – Name is fine. No room for flavor text.
Polish
Challenge (2/2) – Both met.
Quality (3/3) – All good here.
Total: 20/25
Design (10/10)
Creativity – I can't remember anything like this already existing. The effect is very original. Full points here.
Elegance – All good here.
Potential – Timmy likes the action in this and that he can easily return big beasts to the battlefield with this. Johnny loves all the shenanigans he can do with this. Spike loves the high power level of this.
Development (7.5/10)
Viability – Both returning creatures from graveyard to hand and to the battlefield is black, so the ability must be black. It would have felt wrong in any other color. This is fine at rare, but I could also see this as a mythic, both for the unicity of the effect and for the power level.
Balance – Disentomb becomes Zombify. This is huge, in fact there's a three mana difference between those, and that's without keeping into account the fact that reanimation spells nowadays tend to cost at least five mana. I know this is strange to say for a four mana 2/2, but this can even look a bit undercosted. One thing I would have liked for sure is more black mana symbols in the mana cost. The ability is heavy black, and that would have also probably helped balance the card's power level. I'm not sure about the playability in limited. This card seems made for constructed, in particular as a part of an infinite reanimation engine. That's why Johnny loves it.
Creative Writing – All good here.
Polish
Challenge (2/2) – Both met.
Quality (3/3) – All good here.
Total: 22.5/25
Design (8/10)
Creativity – Magic is full of lands turning into creatures, but this is the exact contrary of that, and I can't remember anything like this before. Full points here.
Elegance – The activated ability is not the most intuitive thing. Other than that, it's good.
Potential – I don't think Timmy would care too much about this. Johnny absolutely loves this card. Spike may use it as pseudo-removal on opposing creatures, or as an extreme measure against color screw (not mana screw in general because you still need to already have the four mana to cast this).
Development (7.5/10)
Viability – Turning a creature into a land feels very green. It may be confusing enough of an effect, though, to require being rare, especially for new or less experienced players. Keep in mind, for example, that you can still activate the ability during combat to save a creature of yours from death, and this can both give this card some versatility, giving it additional uses that may not be that immediate to see (a positive), and easily lead to feel bad moments on the other side of the table (a negative). But that's just a minor issue in the end, the card could also be just fine as it is.
Balance – The mana cost looks reasonable. I don't think a mana cost is needed for the ability, as I don't see a way you could use it to go infinite or something like that. If it could target opposing creature a mana cost would have surely been necessary, because than it would function as pseudo-removal, but as it is, only being able to target your own creatures, the lack of a mana cost to activate the ability doesn't worry me too much. Playable in limited, but I'm not sure about constructed.
Creative Writing – All good here.
Polish
Challenge (2/2) – Both met.
Quality (3/3) – I recommend formatting cards as specified in the CCC forum rules. In this particular case, the name should be bold, but I'm not deducting points for this because it's just a matter of formatting.
Total: 20.5/25
Design (7/10)
Creativity – I can't remember any existing cards requiring the sacrifice of Equipment as a cost in an activated ability.
Elegance – The damage this deals is equal to the power it has after you sacrifice the Equipment, because it checks on resolution, and that's not very intuitive.
Potential – Timmy is a bit disappointed that he has to make the creature weaker to use its ability. Johnny may like the challenge of trying to get the best out of the activated ability. I think this costs too much mana for Spike to care.
Development (8/10)
Viability – Usually it's white that interacts with Equipment, but sacrificing them can feel red, especially since red often sacrifices artifacts as an additional cost. Beside that, the effect is clearly red, so colorwise this card is fine anyway. Rarity feels right too.
Balance – Costs look fine. Playable in limited, especially if this is in an artifact block, but I don't see this in constructed.
Creative Writing – All good here. I personally love the flavor of this card. The flavor text in particular is very good because of its irony.
Polish
Challenge (2/2) – Both met.
Quality (2/3) – The flavor text should be between quotation marks (#12 in MOQ1, half a point deducted), and the attribution should be in a separate line (#12 in MOQ1, half a point deducted).
Total: 19/25
Design (8/10)
Creativity – Nothing in this card is particularly new. Everything has been done before.
Elegance – I would have expected this to target the creature it puts the -1/-1 counter on, but other than that it's good.
Potential – Just big enough for Timmy to care, while also giving him a great visual feedback. Maybe Johnny could try to find way to copy and/or recur the trigger to take advantage of the life loss. I think this is strong enough for Spike to at least try to use it.
Development (9/10)
Viability – Everything is in color and rarity looks right. This doesn't feel mythic mechanically, despite being a legendary creature.
Balance – Cost looks fine. A 3/3 for three mana in black looks quite strong, and here we have it with additional upside too, but Blood-Chin Fanatic just came out in DTK after all. Surely playable in limited, it may be playable in constructed but just in specific decks caring about -1/-1 counters or such. Very good in multiplayer, where if not answered it will cause a lot of life to be lost and -1/-1 counters to be added in each single turn cycle.
Creative Writing – All good here.
Polish
Challenge (2/2) – Both met.
Quality (2.5/3) – You are always the one to put counters on permanent, even if the counters are negative and even if you're putting them on a permanent an opponent controls. So, this should say "…that player loses 1 life. Put a -1/-1 counter on a creature that player controls (add 'of his or her choice' here if you want the opponent to choose which creature gets the counter)." (half a point deducted).
Total: 21.5/25
Piar: 19
Trivmvirate: 20.5
Mix Master Mikaeus: 20
doomfish: 22.5
FortuitousEntity: 20.5
Ryder052: 19
Altaurus321: 21.5
MCC - Winner (6): Oct 2014, Apr Nov 2017, Jan 2018, Apr Jun 2019 || Host (15): Dec 2014, Apr Jul Aug Dec 2015, Mar Jul Aug Oct 2016, Feb Jul 2017, Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) || Judge (34): every month from Nov 2014 to Nov 2016 except Oct 2015, every month from Feb to Jul 2017 except Apr 2017, then Oct 2017, May Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here)
CCL - Winner (3): Jul 2016 (tied with Flatline), May 2017, Jul 2019 (last one here) || Host (5): Feb 2015, Mar Apr May Jun 2016
DCC - Winner (1): Mar 2015 (tied with Piar) || Host (3): May Oct 2015, Jan 2016
• The two public custom sets I've been part a part of the design team for:
"Brotherhood of Ormos" - Blog post with all info - set thread - design skeleton / card list || "Extinctia: Homo Evanuit" - Blog post with all info - set thread - card list spreadsheet
• "The Lion's Lair", my article series about MTG and custom card design in particular. Latest article here. Here is the article index. Rather outdated by now, and based on the old MCC rubric, but I'm leaving this here for anybody that might be interested anyway.
• My only public attempt at being a writer: the story of my Leonin custom planeswalker Jeff Lionheart. (I have a very big one that I'm working on right now but that's private for now, and I don't know if I will ever actually publish it, and I also have ideas for multiple future ones, including one where I'm going to reprise Jeff.)
Creativity – Something that lets an opponent control you. What a concept.
Elegance – No problems here.
Potential – Timmy and Spike love this.
9/10.
Development:
Viability – No problems here.
Balance – Black has cards like Entomb and Reanimate, allowing you to get it on the second turn (first turn if you include Dark Ritual.) So I think it's best that it's either easier to block or it has the Darksteel Colossus ability of getting shuffled into your library when it's put into your graveyard.
Creative Writing – No problems here.
7/10
Polish:
Challenges – Both met.
Quality – It should be like this:
Xiax, Bane of Sanity can't be blocked and attacks each turn if able.
At the beginning of your upkeep, choose an opponent. That player controls you this turn.
3/5
Total: 19/25
Creativity – A one-sided Oppression with legs.
Elegance – No problems here.
Potential – Johnny would play with it. Spike might play with it.
8/10.
Development:
Viability – No problems here.
Balance – It costs the same as Oppression. That's okay, but I think making it a 4/2 unblockable is a bit much, especially in a 1v1 match. Either the creature's power should be lower or the bonus should be lower.
Creative Writing – No problems here.
9/10
Polish:
Challenges – Both met.
Quality – I am certain the last line should read “As long as each opponent has no cards in hand, CARDNAME gets +2/+0 and can't be blocked.”
4/5
Total: 21/25
Creativity – The idea of you choosing who to sacrifice for your opponent in new.
Elegance – No problems here.
Potential – This is definitely a Spike card.
8/10.
Development:
Viability – I think this should be a mythic rare.
Balance – Small enough to die to Shock et al. It makes sense to make the Innocent Blood ability cost that high. I think it's good.
Creative Writing – No problems here.
9/10
Polish:
Challenges – Both met.
Quality – I think the first line should read “If an opponent would sacrifice a creature, that player sacrifices a creature of your choice instead.”
4/5
Total: 21/25
Creativity – Consistent with other Masticores.
Elegance – No problems here.
Potential – Timmy might see potential, as does Johnny. Spike might play with it depending on the circumstances.
9/10.
Development:
Viability – No problems here.
Balance – Red would not have a 5/5 for five mana without a drawback unless it's a mythic rare. It seems good.
Creative Writing – I don't know if they'd make a non-artifact Masticore, but I like the flavour.
9/10
Polish:
Challenges – Both met.
Quality – No problems here.
5/5
Total: 23/25
Creativity – Interesting condition for casting this. The second line is similar to Lotus Vale.
Elegance – No problems here.
Potential – Johnny might find a way to break it. Timmy might not like the requirements.
7.5/10.
Development:
Viability – I don't think the second part would be worded like that of Lotus Vale. I'm certain that, for the sake of simplicity, it would be “When CARDNAME enters the battlefield, sacrifice it unless you sacrifice six Islands.” Either way, you're losing six Islands.
Balance – Unless your opponent's also playing blue, you'll need twelve Islands to get this into play. This makes your card almost impossible to play in limited. I think that one drawback is enough.
Creative Writing – No problems here.
7/10
Polish:
Challenges – Both met.
Quality – I think the first line shoule be “Cast CARDNAME only if there are six or more Islands on the battlefield.” As for the second part, see Viability.
4/5
Total: 18.5/25
Creativity – I thought there was something similar, but I was wrong.
Elegance – No problems here.
Potential – Spike will play with it. Timmy might use it to play his big spells.
9/10.
Development:
Viability – I think this should be rare.
Balance – It would take a while to build up (without proliferating, anyway,) so I like it as is.
Creative Writing – Some flavour text would have been nice. I'm sure there would be room for it.
8/10
Polish:
Challenges – Both met.
Quality – No problems here.
5/5
Total: 22/25
admirableadmiral: 21
Vertain: 21
L0ng5h0t: 23
Marco: 18.5
TacticalCelebrant: 22
Creativity: Yea, this card is really something else. As in not anything like any other card.
Elegance: This is definitely one of the harder cards to wrap your head around. I imagine this would be difficult for most new players to completely understand what's going on with this card. Another issue is that the 0/0 looks pretty unappealing on the card, though this is a minor aesthetic nitpick.
Potential: You hear that? It's the sound of Johnny salivating over this card.
Development (8/10):
Viability: Let's start with color. Obviously black is the card that cares about creatures in the graveyard. However, white is the color that most cares about permanents, while the transforming into creatures appears all over the place (mostly in blue with artifacts, never in red). So color is really hard to pin down with this card. Mono-black is OK, but I don't think it's the best fit for this card. I would probably prefer blue/black, since that color combo feels like it would mess the most with dead things.
Onto rules issues. Surprisingly, I don't see too much wrong with this card ruleswise. There might be something that I'm missing, but overall this seems like a pretty good way to make all of your permanents reanimateable.
Balance: This really does depend on the cards around it. For example, this card seems decent in a format with Exhume and Nicol Bolas, Planeswalker, but a format like that existing is pretty unlikely. This seems like it's much more for the casual tables, where this can do the pretty fun stuff, but not do anything too broken. My big concern is the 0/0 P/T, since that could cause some power issues with things like Alesha, Who Smiles at Death or Reveillark, where the P/T clause is a drawback. I think P/T equal to CMC would be better.
Creative Writing: I'm not sure I like the card being named in flavor text but not in the card name itself, but for the most part I really like the creative side of this.
Polish:
Challenge (2/2): Good.
Quality (3/3): As stated above, I do think this is a pretty good template for never having been done before.
Total: 20/25
Creativity: The 2-brid and artifact-ness switch it up a little bit, but this is pretty much just Phyrexian Gargantua.
Elegance: The card itself is pretty clean and simple. The abilities don't really connect to the flavor too much, and there's really not much of a reason for this to be an artifact.
Potential: The effect of drawing cards is nice, especially when attached to a creature, so some people will want this sort of effect.
Development (6.5/10):
Viability: There's very little distinction between 2-brid and mono-colored, so I don't really see a reason why this mana cost wouldn't be fine.
Balance: This is pretty much a card that is designed to be interesting for limited, which this probably would be. There's very little chance a constructed deck would want this unless they could consistently cast this for 4 mana, in which case it would have a chance of being playable.
Creative Writing: The lack of flavor text really hurts this card, as I feel the name could use the help by giving context to the card. Otherwise it is pretty generic and flavorless.
Polish:
Challenge (2/2): Good.
Quality (3/3): Good.
Total: 16.5/25
Creativity: Nothing too crazy, just a Fleshbag Marauder with undying, though it is an interesting twist to the card.
Elegance: For essentially just adding a word to a card that's already been created, it actually adds a lot of depth to the card. It's interesting that this card can be a one-sided Barter in Blood or can be a good sac outlet that leaves behind a 3/2. I feel like this card would be interesting to play with.
Potential: Sac outlets are always useful, as are creatures with good ETB effects, so there's plenty of potential here.
Development (6/10):
Viability: Definitely black. From a complexity standpoint, all the cards it resembles are uncommon. Adding the undying might be enough to bump it up to rare, especially given it's power level.
Balance: Barter in Blood is 4 mana and hits everyone, and this is the same mana cost, is one-sided, and can be used in various other ways. This is definitely too powerful at 4. Even at 5 I might be a little bit weary.
Creative Writing: "Mortiferous" sure is a word. Name and flavor text are both good and fit pretty well with the card.
Polish:
Challenge (2/2): Good.
Quality (3/3): Good.
Total: 18.5/25
Creativity: Utopia Tree with expand. The new ability twist is nice, though it does feel a bit like a land version of cascade.
Elegance: The expand ability does a very good job of capturing the "green mana dork" feel that this card should be going for. The ability is a pretty interesting contrast between itself and something like Sylvan Ranger as you give away the ability to search for a land for the ability to hit a nonbasic you may want.
Potential: Mana dorks are always useful, and this one has the upside of replacing itself with a land. Plenty of uses for this.
Development (6.5/10):
Viability: Birds of Paradise type cards are always rare, so this is fine.
Balance: For comparison, let's look at Sylvan Caryatid, a very good constructed card. If you asked most players, I would guess that they would willing to trade off hexproof for the ability for a card to replace itself. Basically, I'm saying this is a bit on the pushed side. It's not so pushed that it would warp formats, as the card that replaces it is always a land, but this is a bit more powerful than I would be comfortable with.
Creative Writing: I think this could fit a line of flavor text, but the overall feel of the card still comes through. "Knower" in the name feels a bit silly, though.
Polish:
Challenge (2/2): Good.
Quality (3/3): Good.
Total: 20/25
Creativity: The "discard hand then draw" ability has been seen before (Dangerous Wager and such), but never on a creature like this.
Elegance: This is certainly an interesting ability drawback-wise, since it is a very really drawback until you can empty out your hand, at which point it becomes a plus. It's a very simple ability, but one that has a lot of play to it.
Potential: Wheels are pretty popular, although this doesn't quite have the explosiveness that other popular wheel effects have (a la Wheel of Fortune). Still, this feels like a bit of a Johnny/Spike card, so there's some potential.
Development (6/10):
Viability: The ability isn't all that complex, but for uniqueness I think this is fine at rare. Red is obviously correct.
Balance: I think this card would come up closer to the boundaries of playability if it had something to help it in combat. This card really feels like it needs haste or first strike or something to really be able to get in for damage. As it is, the body is probably just not good enough for this to be very playable.
Creative Writing: I don't like that you made this a weird, since that is something that both feels and has been constrained to U/R. Other then that the name and flavor text are fine.
Polish:
Challenge (2/2): Good.
Quality (3/3): Good.
Total: 19/25
Creativity: Very unique effect, plays off of the design space opened up by Humble Defector.
Elegance: The flavor of the ability is kind of weird. It's like he can help you only if he's helping your opponent, which seems strange to me. This is lessened by the fact that this sort of ability is cool and has some very nice gameplay to it.
Potential: While the ability probably isn't quite as powerful as Humble Defector, it still brings out the Johnny juices of trying to abuse this without your opponent getting the benefit.
Development (6.5/10):
Viability: Nothing to say here, everything looks fine.
Balance: I really just want this to be a 3/1. I feel like a 2/1 body is so negligible most of the time that it's usual going to be better to get the 4 damage. Either way, I don't think this would do anything in constructed, and in limited it would be good because any removal is good removal.
Creative Writing: The flavor text makes him sound kind of white with all the self-sacrifice, and the name doesn't really fit the fact that he switches controller.
Polish:
Challenge (2/2): Good.
Quality (2.5/3): Should be "if you do", not "if so".
Total: 19/25
Creativity: Abilities are pretty unique, so that's good.
Elegance: I'm not a big fan of an ability word that references a non-evergreen keyword. I think it would be fine just to say "Whenever an opponent casts a spell you own" or something like that. Also, the way the boon ability is worded is kind of odd. The "offer an opponent" part just seems out of place in a games that's essentially about killing one another. There's really nothing wrong with the mechanic itself, just the way it's implemented seems bad to me.
Potential: I don't know who this card really appeals to other than limited Spikes. Timmies don't like the drawback, and there's no combo potential for Johnny.
Development (7/10):
Viability: Seems fine.
Balance: As previously stated, this really is a card just for limited. In constructed formats there are bigger creatures without drawback. In limited this is good because a 3/4 for 3 mana is always good and the drawback shouldn't be too bad, especially since there is a very good chance the card will just be a land.
Creative Writing: I would like a small line of flavor text. Dryad Merchant is an odd creature type, although it seems fine based on what the card does. Name seems good.
Polish:
Challenge (2/2): Good.
Quality (3/3): Good.
Total: 17.5/25
Guesswork: 16.5/25
Flatline: 18.5/25
SelesnyaNewLife: 20/25
riliss: 19/25
Figurative: 19/25
Jimmy Groove: 17.5/25