Bloodborne Monstrosity1RR
Creature - Zombie Beast (U)
Double Strike
Afflict 3 (Whenever this creature becomes blocked, defending player loses three life.) The waters of the Luxa turned to blood, the newly dead piled upon its banks, and ancient horrors that were long forgotten began to emerge from the crimson pools.
1/3
Thoughtless Fighter3
Artifact Creature - Golem (U)
Trample
Eternalize 5U(5U, Exile this card from your graveyard: Create a token that's a copy of it, except it's a 4/4 black Zombie Golem with no mana cost. Eternalize only as a sorcery.) Not all who wander are lost, as not all who are worthy are fully alive.
2/2
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My thoughts are with the friends and family of the Orlando Shooting victims and with the rest of the LGBTQA+ community.
Check out my Newborder Peasant Cube here! http://www.cubetutor.com/draft/37467
Necarg, please don't acknowledge this in any way whatsoever.
True Name Mafia (Win),Clan Contest IX Mafia (Win), Bravely Default Mafia (Loss), BOTAS (loss), BfV (Loss), Ace Attourney (loss)
Rules Advisor before they were eradicated
The Dark SoulBB
Creature - Human Warrior (U)
As long The Dark Soul is a Zombie gets Afflict 3 (Whenever this creature becomes blocked, defending player loses 5 life.)
Eternalize Pay 5 life (Pay 5 life, Exile this card from your graveyard: Create a token that's a copy of it, except it's 4/4 black Zombie Elemental with no mana cost.)
2/1
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Over time, all trips end up in the same place, at home."
Blighted Sandwurm3BB
Creature - Wurm Horror (U)
Afflict 4 (Whenever Blighted Sandwurm becomes blocked, defending player loses 4 life.)
Whenever Blighted Sandwurm attacks and isn't blocked, you may put a -1/-1 counter on target creature defending player controls. The failure of the Hekma left the inhabitants of Naktamun vulnerable to the unspeakable horrors of the desert wastes.
0/5
Triumphant of Guile1U
Creature - Human Rogue (U)
Triumphant of Guile can't be blocked except by creatures with the same power.
Eternalize (4UU, Exile this card from your graveyard: Create a token that's a copy of it, except it's a 4/4 black Zombie Human Wizard with no mana cost. Eternalize only as a sorcery.)
2/1
Bloated Crocodile4UU
Creature — Crocodile (C)
Bloated Crocodile can't attack unless you control a Zombie.
Eternalize 3UU(3UU, Exile this card from your graveyard: Create a token that's a copy of it, except it's 4/4 black Zombie Crocodile with no mana cost.)
5/5
Magus of Living End2B
Creature - Human Cleric {R}
When Magus of Living End enters the battlefield, destroy target creature or non-Bolas planeswalker with converted mana cost less than Magus of Living End's power.
Eternalize 4BB(4BB, Exile this card from your graveyard: Create a token that's a copy of it, except it's 4/4 black Zombie Human Cleric with no mana cost. Eternalize only as a sorcery.) He loves God Pharaoh's work. He will end the weaklings that God Pharaoh doesn't bother.
2/2
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.)
Triumphant of Guile1U
Creature - Human Rogue (U)
Triumphant of Guile can't be blocked except by creatures with the same power.
Eternalize (4UU, Exile this card from your graveyard: Create a token that's a copy of it, except it's a 4/4 black Zombie Human Wizard with no mana cost. Eternalize only as a sorcery.)
2/1
Design - (1/3) Appeal: Timmy would be thoroughly bored by this non-interactive card.
Johnny would surely be at least somewhat intrigued by the nuances of this card’s first line of rules text.
Spike might find this card more interesting in the hand or in the graveyard rather than on the battlefield. Truly, it is finding the right time to play either half of the card that requires skill; once this creature resolves onto the battlefield, it is rather straightforward. (1.5/3) Elegance: Since this card’s rules text does not say 'base power', we have to start worrying about layers. I will skip the in-depth explanation here; it suffices to say that this is a major inelegance with moderate repercussions.
Otherwise, this card has another inelegance due to its first line of rules text having broad implications that are inconsiderate of its niche differences to unblockable; this is a minor inelegance with minor repercussions.
Development - (2/3) Viability: High-power evasion has always been in blue; this card’s first line of rules text is likely too complex to allow for an Uncommon.
The main slight against this criterion pertaining to this card is its first line of rules text. It may not be developmentally viable to create this variant of unblockability in exchange for comparatively little gain for the players involved when it comes to this card being played rather than merely spoilt. (1.5/3) Balance: To summarize, the first half of this card is quite a bit too strong; the second half of this card is ever so slightly too weak.
To further explain, a 2/1 flyer for 2 mana with no downside is a fair uncommon to pick in Limited. In the Limited of Amonkhet block, 2 and 4 power are both the usual powers on creatures (the latter thanks to Hour of Devastation’s Eternalize mechanic). So, I will give this card the benefit of the doubt and assume that the first line of rules text roughly equates to a somewhat stronger “flying”.
Should this indeed be the case, the first half of the card is roughly equivalent to a slightly stronger colorshift of a Stormfront Pegasus, a white card. Blue’s fundamental weakness as a color is supposed to be its below-par creatures; whenever this fundamental weakness is subverted (take for example the egregious case of Torrential Gearhulk), the resulting creature can be surprisingly strong as a result. Add in that this evasive 2/1 for 2 also has such a strong upside in the form of Eternalize, and this 2-drop is already too strong to see print.
The eternalized version of this card is comparable to a slightly stronger Air Elemental, a card that is below-par even in blue, the color with the overall weakest creatures. Because of this, I daresay, tentatively, that the eternalized version of this card is ever so slightly too weak, but the non-eternalized version of this card more than makes up for it.
Creativity - (2/3) Uniqueness: The eye-catching concept of this card, its first line of rules text, serves to be a unique idea. I doubt that I have seen this ability, this mix of skulk and “daunt” together, on an official card before. Unfortunately, neither half of the idea is particularly unique these days, with skulk having been thoroughly tested and with “daunt” having been done numerous times as well. (2/3) Flavor: This card name leaves me desiring; “triumph” and “guile” are not exactly the most harmonious combination of words, at least in my humble opinion. Without any flavor text (and this card has no room for flavor text), I am left mildly confused.
Polish - (1/3) Quality: The first qualitative error in regards to this card is that the first line of rules text is imprecise; I am almost certain that “the same power” cannot suffice in this particular instance (minus half a point).
There is another error, involving this card’s wording of the eternalize ability. Simply put, the eternalize keyword is missing a cost (I had to assume that the eternalize reminder text contained the intended eternalize cost, minus one point).
There is also a minor error in this card’s reminder text; this creature’s type is a Rogue, yet it instructs to create a Wizard token (minus half a point). (2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge met! (2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges met!
Total: 15/25
Final thoughts: Unfortunately, mixing two mechanics together, in this case skulk and daunt, does not necessarily create a card design worth developing. With that premise, I do conclude that replacing the first line of rules text with the simpler ‘CARDNAME can’t be blocked’ would have surely been a step in the right direction.
Relentless Warrior2RR
Creature - Minotaur Warrior (Common)
When Relentless Warior enters the battlefield, deal 2 damage to target creature.
Eternalize 4RR4RR, Exile this card from your graveyard: Create a token that's a copy of it, except it's a 4/4 black Zombie Minotaur Warrior with no mana cost. Eternalize only as a sorcery.) The Eternals waded into battle, cutting down foes as a scythe through a field of wheat.
2/2
Design - (1.5/3) Appeal: Timmy likes this card, for it certainly seems and acts quite relentless indeed!
Johnny is left wanting by this simplistic and fair card.
Spike is appealed to by this card, as it can not only serve as four cards in one (a 2/2 for 4 plus a removal spell followed up by a 4/4 for 6 plus a removal spell again), but no one card here is particularly strong in the midgame or late game by itself. Put together, this card can be rather useful, so knowing how to get the most out of it is important. (3/3) Elegance: No inelegances here (although, see Quality).
Development - (2/3) Viability: This card is definitely red. However, I do think that this card should be an Uncommon rather than a Common, since it raises several red flags against New World Order at Common. This is mainly because it can accrue an absurd amount of ‘on-board’ advantage at Common. (2/3) Balance: In a Constructed environment, this card is completely fine. In a Limited environment, multiples of these can lead to an oppressive accruing of on-board advantages against an opponent rather easily, as 1 or 2 toughness creatures are rather normal. Again, at Uncommon, this card would not have this balance issue pertaining to draft environments.
Creativity - (1/3) Uniqueness: Red deals damage all the time, although the eternalize does help quite a bit here to make the card more unique in practice. (2/3) Flavor: The adjective “Relentless” in the card name is great, but the noun “Warrior” in the card name is, simply put, not so great.
Furthermore, the flavor text fits nicely on this card, so congratulations are due there. However, this card is only an eternal half of the time, and the flavor text makes minimal sense (at best) on the first half of the card. Where the flavor text would make the most sense and be almost perfectly fitting, on the second half of the card, would be when flavor text would not appear on it, since it is merely a token copy mechanically. The flavor text itself is nicely written, though.
Polish - (1/3) Quality: Firstly, there is a minor error in the regards to the card’s name in the rules text, since “warrior” has two Rs (minus half a point).
Secondly, all cards that can deal damage in all of Magic: The Gathering specifically designate the source of the damage in the rules text of the card. Thankfully, the source can be obviously inferred to be the creature in this case, so this does not constitute an inelegance (minus one point). The first line of rules text should be written as “When Relentless Warrior enters the battlefield, it deals 2 damage to target creature.”
Thirdly, the left-most parenthesis of this card’s eternalize reminder text is missing (minus half a point). (2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge met! (2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges met!
Total: 16.5/25
Final thoughts: As I was judging this card, I found it to have much in the way of potential. If I were to develop this card design, I would develop it as follows:
Relentless Zealot2RR
Creature — Minotaur Warrior (U)
When Relentless Zealot enters the battlefield, you may have it deal X damage to target creature, where X is Relentless Zealot’s power.
Eternalize—4RR, Discard a card. (4RR, Discard a card, Exile this card from your graveyard: Create a token that's a copy of it, except it's a 4/4 black Zombie Minotaur Warrior with no mana cost. Eternalize only as a sorcery.)
2/2
The Dark SoulBB
Creature - Human Warrior (U)
As long The Dark Soul is a Zombie gets Afflict 3 (Whenever this creature becomes blocked, defending player loses 5 life.)
Eternalize Pay 5 life (Pay 5 life, Exile this card from your graveyard: Create a token that's a copy of it, except it's 4/4 black Zombie Elemental with no mana cost.)
2/1
Design - (1/3) Appeal (2/3) Elegance
Development - (1/3) Viability (0.5/3) Balance
Creativity - (2.5/3) Uniqueness (2/3) Flavor
Polish - (0/3) Quality (2/2) Main Challenge: Both subchallenges met! (2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges met!
Total: 13/25
Final thought: mirrodin71, if you would like for me to provide the in-depth critique for this card, please send me a private message personally.
Thoughtless Fighter3
Artifact Creature - Golem (U)
Trample
Eternalize 5U(5U, Exile this card from your graveyard: Create a token that's a copy of it, except it's a 4/4 black Zombie Golem with no mana cost. Eternalize only as a sorcery.) Not all who wander are lost, as not all who are worthy are fully alive.
2/2
Design - (0.5/3) Appeal: Timmy is bored by this card’s almost complete lack of spectacle.
Johnny is at least interested enough in this card to try and do something or other with it. I am not exactly sure what that is.
Spike would express thorough disinterest towards this bland card. (3/3) Elegance: To its credit, this is a very clean card.
Development - (1/3) Viability: Not only trample is tertiary in blue, but I am not sure if it has ever appeared on a small artifact creature before, let alone should.
The rarity of this card is also perhaps off, as it could debatably be Common without meaningfully affecting most draft environments.
This card also goes against the grain of the rest of the embalm and eternalize cards by being an artifact creature. This cannot help but be at least a minor developmental concern. (1.5/3) Balance: This card has a low score for this criterion simply due to how under the par it is, especially compared to other Uncommons in the Amonkhet block. The three drop is the most desirable creature drop in Limited, but it lacks impact on turn 3 as well as in the late game when it can potentially be eternalized.
Creativity - (2.5/3) Uniqueness: To be fair to this card, it is quite unique despite so little rules text. The fact that it can become a black artifact also has interesting implications. (0.5/3) Flavor: First off, how does one make a zombie out of an artifact creature? Exactly how can a golem be mummified?
The name of this card does not seem to be very interesting, and the flavor text makes me feel as though I am on an entirely different plane not called Amonkhet. The trample feels out of place in blue, colorless, and even black.
This card just does not make any sense in terms of flavor.
On the other hand, they did publish an illusion with embalm.
Polish - (3/3) Quality: Perfect! (2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge met! (2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges met!
Total: 16/25
Final thought: This card most certainly has both simplicity and novelty going for it.
Bloodthirsty WorthyB
Creature - Human Warrior (Uncommon)
When Bloodthirsty Worthy enters the battlefield, you lose life equel to its power.
Eternalize - BB, Discard a card. (BB, Discard a card, Exile this card from your graveyard: Create a token that's a copy of it, except it's a 4/4 black Zombie Human Warrior with no mana cost. Eternalize only as a sorcery.)
2/2
Design - (1.5/3) Appeal: Simply put, Timmy dislikes this card. Johnny does not find this card very interesting at all.
No, this was a card specially made for Spike through and through. Doubtlessly, Spike loves this card to death. (3/3) Elegance: Worthily elegant!
Development - (3/3) Viability: This card is surely black instead of any other color. The rarity of Uncommon is about right, although perhaps this card could be a Rare if needed. (3/3) Balance: This card is a little pushed, but it does not have the versatility to complement it. Only so many copies of this card can be played safely due to how resource intensive it is in exchange for trying to win the game in a hurry. Again, this card is pushed, but it does have the necessary tradeoffs to be smartly pushed.
Creativity - (1.5/3) Uniqueness: This card’s most unique element is that the amount of life that has to be paid is variable because of eternalize. In all honesty, that is not half-bad. (2/3) Flavor: I do dislike the name, simply because ‘worthy’ is not a singular noun. This card’s mechanics are still quite flavorful, however.
No room for flavor text.
Polish - (2/3) Quality: First off, in the first line of rules text, the word ‘equal’ is misspelled as “equel” (minus half a point).
Secondly, the formatting for the eternalize cost is off. There should be no spaces before or after the dash (which should also be a long dash instead of a short dash ‘—’, minus half a point). (2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge met! (2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges met!
Total: 20/25
Final thought: Do try to remember to proofread your cards before the deadlines of the future!
Scourge of the UnworthyBB
Creature - Zombie Wizard [U]
Afflict 1 (Whenever a creature you control becomes blocked, defending player loses 1 life.)
Other creatures you control have Afflict 1.
1/3 There's no disaster so terrible that it can't be made worse.
Design - (1/3) Appeal: This creature is rather small and unexciting for Timmy. Timmy usually likes lords, but this lord is does not feel lordly.
Johnny might be able to do something with giving all creatures afflict, yet I am at a loss as to what it could be.
This is a useful, if color-weighted, creature for Spike to play with. (3/3) Elegance: Indubitably elegant.
Development - (2.5/3) Viability: This card definitely works as a black card. However, at Uncommon, this card is heavily constricted to satisfy such a rarity, when it is undying to be an exciting afflict Rare. (3/3) Balance: Three key facts save this card’s balance score. Firstly, afflict is conditional, and the condition of afflict up to the opponent as to whether it can trigger. Secondly, afflict 1 is a very small upside. Thirdly, this card may be a 2-drop, but it is a color-weighted. Despite all the limitations that have been imposed upon this card, it manages to thrive within them.
Creativity - (3/3) Uniqueness: Lords are done every set, but an afflict lord has some interesting uniqueness to it. The main reason for such a high uniqueness score is that there is no official 0-drop, 1-drop, or 2-drop lord in all of Magic: The Gathering. There is an odd Rare from Time Spiral, Hivestone, but that is not technically a lord since it is not a creature. (2/3) Flavor: The flavor of this card is quite sound; the name, flavor text, and rules text all fit together nicely. The problem is that this creature is so small that it feels as though it should be bigger with such a setup, that it should be a scourge all by itself.
Polish - (1.5/3) Quality: Firstly, the word “Afflict” in the second line of rules text needs to be lowercase (minus half a point). Secondly, there is a sentence of important reminder text needs to be included at the end of that second line of rules text (minus half a point). (If a creature has multiple instances of afflict, each triggers separately.)
Lastly, on any Magic card, the flavor text goes before the power and toughness (minus half a point). (2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge met! (2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges met!
Total: 20/25
Final thoughts: This card really would have been so much more exciting as a rare, though. Oh well.
Lazotep Monolith4RR
Creature - Elemental (U)
Trample
At the beginning of your upkeep, Lazotep Monolith deals damage to you equal to a quarter of its power, rounded up.
Eternalize 2R (2R, Exile this card from your graveyard: Create a token that's a copy of it, except it's 4/4 black Zombie Elemental with no mana cost. Eternalize only as a sorcery.) A piece of Bolas's profane power remained in the very lazotep deposits whose products made his servants Eternal.
8/8
Design - (1.5/3) Appeal: This creature is really big for Timmy, but that is about it.
Johnny can discard or mill this into a graveyard to play it early for three mana, but otherwise it is rather dull.
Spike can work with this; the main problem for her is that this card goes in reverse compared to the normal progression of a game of Magic. (1/3) Elegance: This card’s second line of rules text constitutes a moderate inelegance due to both the need for division and the need for rounding in a game that does not often use either. Furthermore, this card’s render is ten lines, which constitutes a severe inelegance.
Development - (1/3) Viability: This card is most certainly red. However, this card is surely not an Uncommon, as this card is far too unusual to be anything but Rare.
Another severe developmental concern is that this card’s eternalize cost is significantly cheaper than its casting cost, which both goes against the flow of a normal game of Magic and against the very idea of eternalize itself. (1/3) Balance: Firstly, this downside is likely only relevant in a set with as much random life loss as Hour of Devastation (see afflict, the Tormentverticalcycle, et cetera.) Otherwise, an 8/8 trampler for 6 that has decent half-recursion for half as much mana is far too strong for Red. Despite the surprisingly relevant drawback of this card, along with the high mana cost, this card is far too game-ending for 6 mana (or 3 mana if you can cheat out the 4/4 with discard or mill). Truly, the numbers on this card are just way too pushed for their own good.
Creativity - (3/3) Uniqueness: Never before has the mathematical word “quarter” been used in a line of rules text before on any official Magic card. That alone, regardless of the other unique points of this card, earns a full score for this criterion. Congratulations. (1/3) Flavor: The name is great. The flavor text is also great (even if there is no room for it on the card itself). However, there are still severe flavor problems present here, like how exactly does one mummify an Elemental?
Also, it is a severe flavor problem that the eternal version of this creature is so much smaller than the creature itself, when eternalize is flavorfully defined to make small creatures bigger and not big creatures smaller.
Polish - (3/3) Quality: Perfect! (2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge met! (2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges met!
Total: 15.5/25
Final thought: Here is a fun fact: did you know that lazotep is blue, not red?
If your username has been bolded here, congratulations are in order — you have qualified for Round 2 of the July MCC! Best of luck!
If your username has not been bolded here, there is always next month. Thank you for participating; best of luck next month!
Kefnet's Favored1U
Creature - Human Wizard (U)
When Kefnet's Favored enters the battlefield, draw a card.
Eternalize 2UU (2UU, Exile this card from your graveyard: Create a token that's a copy of it, except it's a 4/4 black Zombie Human Wizard with no mana cost. Eternalize only as a sorcery.) One of the few initiates who completed all the trials not by being well-rounded, but through great wit alone.
1/1
Design (2/3) Appeal - Timmy doesn't care. Johnny and Spike both like the card drawing, the former to dig into library for pieces and the latter for card advantage purposes, even though a Melvin Spike like me just has to point out that when you first cast this it's card parity and it's only actual card advantage when you later eternalize it. That's not a problem in any way, just one thing I had to point out and I couldn't help myself. The life of a Melvin is hard, all those mechanical details to juggle... but Melvin is not a psychographic, as Maro often mentions, so he has no place here. Go back inside myself, Mel! (3/3) Elegance - All good.
Development (3/3) Viability - No problems with either the color pie or rarity. (3/3) Balance - The costs look fine to me. The mana cost is certainly right, as there is precedent, and the eternalize cost feels good to me, and quite strong (a cantripping 4/4 is probably worth more than four mana in a vacuum). This card is certainly very playable in limited even if probably not a first pick, but that's just fine. I would really like a card like this to see constructed play, but Elvish Visionary has been a fringe card at best. I don't know if giving it eternalize is enough for constructed, probably not, sadly, but I wouldn't be surprised to see this pop up somewhere in Standard. I don't see any problem in casual or multiplayer.
Creativity (1/3) Uniqueness - An eternalize cantrip creature. Technically new, but nothing to write home about. (2.5/3) Flavor - The name is good. As for the flavor text, that's good too in a vacuum, but I don't exactly understand how one could pass, say, the Trial of Strength only with your intelligence. It's not like there is much to think about when you're surrounded from all sides by giant angry beasts, most of which poisonous. At least in the other non-blue Trials you could apply some tactical thinking. Anyway, I'm making this sound bigger than it really is, it's actually just a small inconsistency.
Polish (3/3) Quality - All good. (2/2) Main Challenge - Good. (2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
Total: 21.5/25
Worthy of Red Lazotep2RR
Creature - Minotaur Wizard [Uncommon]
Whenever Worthy of Red Lazotep deals combat damage to a player, you may sacrifice it. If you do, it deals damage equal to its power to either that player or all creatures he or she controls.
Eternalize 4RR(4RR, Exile this card from your graveyard: Create a token that's a copy of it, except it's a 4/4 black Zombie Minotaur Wizard with no mana cost. Eternalize only as a sorcery.) Only the bravest dare channel the power of highly explosive Red Lazotep, which is more likely to kill the initiate than the trials. The Worthy who endure are immortalized in Red Lazotep as living weapons. 2/3
Design (2/3) Appeal - Timmy likes how this can affect the board. Johnny could probably do something pairing this with evasion-granting and recurring engines. The lack of evasion and relatively small stats really turn Spike down. (0/3) Elegance - This must be one of the wordiest cards I've ever seen, excluding some very-old-time real Magic craziness from the 90s. First, you can't cut the reminder text as this is not a rare or mythic, in which case it would be unadvised but allowable. Here it's not even allowable. If you copy this in MSE you can see this already fills the text box only with rules text. Let's now keep into account that the rules text should actually be even longer for templating (see Quality) and let's add flavor text. Now we've got an almost unreadable card that goes deep into microtext territory, twelve lines with a very small font once both those things are included. The text would not even be that hard to comprehend, it's just loooong to the point of being unrealistic and just unprintable.
Development (1.5/3) Viability - No problems with the color pie, but I really can't see this at uncommon. The length, complexity and potential for huge board swings are all factors that push this up to rare. While a single one might still be acceptable at uncommon, all those together really make me say this should totally be a rare. (3/3) Balance - This definitely looks playable in limited: if you can somehow let it connect reliably, and it's good for balance that this does not have any in-built way, this is 6 damage to the face (2 and then 4 when eternalized) or a pseudo-one-sided-Wrath. You can also do one thing once and the other with the Eternal copy. This looks quite powerful, and potentially worthy (you can choose whether the pun is intended or not) of constructed formats, even if costs look significant there. The choice of which player you should hit with this looks quite interesting in multiplayer.
Creativity (2.5/3) Uniqueness - Mechanically, letting you choose whether to deal damage to the player or their creatures is a nice twist on known mechanics but nothing more than that. Flavorfully, this is definitely unique. (2.5/3) Flavor - I feel like the flavor here is something I either love or hate, I'm just not sure which way I'm leaning on, but there's no middle ground here. That's what happens when one invents new would-be-story-relevant flavor that's not how we're seeing things being in canon. The flavor text here is essentially fan-fiction. I love the creativity and the will to expand our knowledge of the worlds we visit, after all it's often said that Magic is a game all about exploration. I don't love ("hate" is actually too strong of a word) the feeling of contradiction with what we already know about the world and what is officially canon. At least that facet is minimized in this particular card, as there are no actual flavor contradictions here, just an alternate unofficial fate for some of the Worthy. I think this makes me lean towards the "let's appreciate the creativity" side in this particular case, even if one needs to pay attention when doing such things.
Polish (1.5/3) Quality - A space is missing between the eternalize cost and the reminder text (-0.5). Also, "...either that player or..." is clearly not standard templating (-0.5). The easiest solution is probably turning this into a modal ability:
"... If you do, choose one -
• Worthy of Red Lazotep deals damage equal to its power to defending player.
• Worthy of Red Lazotep deals damage equal to its power to all creatures defending player controls."
Mentioning defending player works because when the ability triggers we're still in the combat phase, in the combat damage step specifically, so a defending player is still defined and will be for quite some more time (until the end of combat step is over and we enter the second main phase). Also, this template makes the card more wordy, but I feel like that's not a problem here as the text is already unrealistically long (see Elegance). Finally, no need for power and toughness to be bolded (-0.5). (2/2) Main Challenge - Good. (2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
Total: 17/25
Eternal Visionary1U
Creature - Jackal Wizard (C)
When Eternal Visionary enters the battlefield, scry X, where X is its power.
Eternalize 6U(6U, Exile this card from your graveyard: Create a token that's a copy of it, except it's a 4/4 black Zombie Jackal Wizard with no mana cost. Eternalize only as a sorcery.)
1/3
Design (1.5/3) Appeal - Timmy doesn't care. Both Jonny and Spike like this a lot as they both love scry: Johnny looks for pieces and Spike sets up his draws. Spike doesn't like the high eternalize cost though. (3/3) Elegance - Exemplar. A lesson in how to make an elegant common.
Development (3/3) Viability - Everything is in color. For once, this is a custom card I can actually see at common even under NWO. You just gave everyone another lesson, this time in how to make a good common, and that's way harder than it looks. (2.5/3) Balance - This is a typical card made for limited play, and there is nothing wrong with that. Every set has a big number of those, they usually take up the best part of any set actually. This looks pretty good in limited by the way, even if it honestly has no chance of seeing any kind of constructed competitive play, but I really feel like it wasn't meant to, so it's not a problem. This card is good at what it was meant to do, even it you admittedly played it safe with the eternalize cost. I can't really blame you for that though, a 4/4 that lets you scry 4 when it enters can be quite relevant. No problems in casual or multiplayer.
Creativity (1.5/3) Uniqueness - Eternalize meets scry, aka a block mechanics meets an evergreen one. Good mix-and-match but nothing groundbreaking. Now if the other mechanic was also a block mechanic instead of an evergreen one... (2/3) Flavor - The name is good and fits very well with the mechanics, not just "Eternal" with eternalize (that's pretty much of a given, as all Eternals have either afflict or eternalize also in the real HOU set), but especially the word "Visionary" with scry, and I want to prize that. Too bad there is no flavor text here to be judged, even if there is certainly room for it in this card. It also feels a bit strange to see a Khenra (creature type Jackal) in blue as the living non-Zombie ones are typically a Gruul-colored tribe in Amonkhet, but it's a good way to show the transformation this particular Khenra has undergone when eternalized. It's essentially the same trick that was used in Khenra Eternal in the real HOU set, so I guess that's not actually a problem.
Polish (3/3) Quality - All good. Reminder text for scry is not needed because now it's evergreen. (2/2) Main Challenge - Good. (2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
Total: 20.5/25
Rabid Hyena1R
Creature – Hyena (U)
First strike, afflict 2 (Whenever this creature becomes blocked, defending player loses 2 life.)
You may exert Rabid Hyena as it attacks. When you do, target creature blocks it this combat if able. (An exerted creature won't untap during your next untap step.) Those that continued to hunt in packs starved to death.
2/1
Design (2/3) Appeal - Timmy likes how this affects the board and can let him get through with his creatures. He also likes afflict because his opponent takes damage whatever they do (I know it's technically life loss and not damage, but you get what I mean). I don't see much to do for Johnny. Spike likes the pair of first strike and afflict. (3/3) Elegance - No problems here.
Development (3/3) Viability - No problems with either the color pie or rarity. (3/3) Balance - This looks pushed. Once, a 2/1 for 1R would have had to be vanilla or needed a drawback if it had first strike and would have probably been unplayable anywhere. Today, red is allowed to have a 2/2vanilla or a 2/1first strikewith an additional upside for that cost (yes, the Chaser technically has two more abilities but they're really connected so they kind of count as one), but this actually has even more additional upside. In limited, I really feel this would already be playable even without first strike. With that too, I can see it being tried out in some aggressive red constructed decks. Standard, obviously. In bigger formats I think there are still better options. I see no particular problems in casual or multiplayer.
Creativity (2.5/3) Uniqueness - A mix-and-match card mixing two block keywords (afflict and exert) that have not been mixed in their original block. That's quite good here. (2/3) Flavor - Afflict is reserved for Bolas's Eternals in the real HOU set, in fact all cards with afflict in the set are Zombies, which this is not. This looks like "just" one of the many dangerous beasts that live in the desert of Amonkhet, and I feel like afflict could also work to represent the "Rabid" aspect of this Hyena. This creature isn't afflicting you because it's an Eternal but just because it's rabid. It can work, even if it goes a bit outside of the treaded path. It could also be that you meant this Hyena to be an Eternal and the lacking Zombie creature type was just an oversight. Anyway, that's my only remark here, everything else works just fine.
Polish (2.5/3) Quality - When one keyword needs reminder text (in this case afflict) and one does not (in this case first strike), they need to be on separate lines (-0.5). (2/2) Main Challenge - Good. (2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
Total: 22/25
Magus of Living End2B
Creature - Human Cleric {R}
When Magus of Living End enters the battlefield, destroy target creature or non-Bolas planeswalker with converted mana cost less than Magus of Living End's power.
Eternalize 4BB(4BB, Exile this card from your graveyard: Create a token that's a copy of it, except it's 4/4 black Zombie Human Cleric with no mana cost. Eternalize only as a sorcery.) He loves God Pharaoh's work. He will end the weaklings that God Pharaoh doesn't bother.
2/2
Design (2/3) Appeal - Timmy likes to play with this but hates to play against this. I don't see much for Johnny here. Spike just loves this card. He has a soft spot for creatures that affect the board while also doubling up as removal spells. (0.5/3) Elegance - While the text is not too long (reason why this is not a zero) and relatively easy to understand (less experienced players would probably have to pause for a moment to get that this compares a value of cmc with one of power, but that's not the big problem), this card still feels off as an overall entity, and that's mainly due to setting expectations and then not delivering. This card's concept builds on things that already have specific meaning: in modern-era Magic, the Magi (or whatever the plural of Magus is) are all Human Wizard (not Cleric) creatures with an ability that mimics a famous card from the past, such as, you guess it, Living End. So you'd expect a Wizard that somehow exchanges creatures on the battlefield and in graveyards. Well, that's... not exactly what we have here. It makes you feel like you were supposed to get something and then you get something else completely unrelated...
Development (3/3) Viability - No problems with either the color pie or rarity. Actually, I want to point out that you did the right thing by ignoring the rarity subchallenge, as this card has to be rare for sure, this is not what's preventing you from advancing. If the other problems weren't there, not only this would not have been an obstacle but it would have actually been the right choice. (3/3) Balance - All the eternalize cards checking the creature's power are quite interesting, because they use the stats upgrade granted by eternalize to good effect. It's not by chance that this kind of cards make up the majority of all the cards with eternalize in HOU. This card makes no exception. It removes a small thing in the early game and then comes back to hunt bigger game, even if this is not M15 anymore and Garruk is not involved. This is still something he would do, anyway. But let's get back to the card. It's certainly playable in limited and I think it might also have some constructed implications. Also, the planeswalker clause gets more relevant in constructed. The costs look good to me and I don't see any problems in casual or multiplayer.
Creativity (2/3) Uniqueness - I think the phrase "non-Bolas planeswalker" was only seen in the appropriately-named Hour of Devastation, so that still feels quite new even if you took it from a real card. Comparing cmc with power is also original, even if a bit complex but that's not what we're looking at here. Overall, this card mechanically feels like a nice twist on eternalize. (1.5/3) Flavor - Unfortunately, the name doesn't really work as I've already explained (see Elegance). The flavor text doesn't feel that professional either, mainly because of missing articles (see Quality). It's a form issue, not a substance one. The substance is good enough.
Polish (1.5/3) Quality - The reminder text for eternalize is missing an "a": "...except it's a 4/4..." (-0.5). In the flavor text, "the" is missing right before each instance of "God-Pharaoh" (two times -0.5 makes -1). (2/2) Main Challenge - Good. (1/2) Subchallenges - Monoblack color identity but rare.
I'm new, so I hope I did all the formatting correctly.
First of all, let me welcome you to the MCC. May this be the first participation of a long series. Check out the other contests too if you feel like.
Promised Oracle1U
Creature - Naga Wizard (U) U, T, Sacrifice Promised Oracle: Counter target spell unless its controller pays X, where X is Promised Oracle's power
Eternalize 3UU(3UU, Exile this card from your graveyard: Create a token that's a copy of it, except it's a 4/4 black Zombie Naga Wizard with no mana cost. Eternalize only as a sorcery.) The God-Pharaoh told Kefnet's devotees that they would be remembered. He neglected to mention how.
1/2
Design (2/3) Appeal - Timmy doesn't care. Johnny might do something with recurring engines. Spike is the one this card is for, and he really likes it. A creature with Force Spike that later turns into one with Convolute is definitely something he can get behind. (3/3) Elegance - I see no problems here.
Development (3/3) Viability - No problems with either the color pie or rarity. (2.5/3) Balance - I'm honestly not a big fan of this kind of cards, because the opponent can see it coming. It loses the surprise value of a counterspell in your hand, and that is relevant. They can play around it in an easier way. Still, this is certainly playable in limited. I'd be a bit surprised to see this in Standard, but it might be possible as a sideboard play for blue control decks to bring in against aggro decks, maybe. I see no particular problems in casual or multiplayer.
Creativity (2/3) Uniqueness - A simple but functional twist on eternalize. No existing creatures have a counterspell ability where the mana paid is tied to the creature's power. The closest existing thing is Spell Rupture, which is quite different. It still feels kind of similar to Glen Elendra Archmage though: a creature that sacrifices itself to counter a spell and then has a way to come back to do it again. (2.5/3) Flavor - The name is fine and the flavor text is really good. I just have a minor remark regarding the timing of Nicol Bolas telling that to Kefnet's worshippers: when Nicol Bolas last came to Amonkhet 60 years ago, he killed everyone but the toddlers and then he was not seen until just now, so when did he exactly tell them that? Well, I guess he could just have talked to those surviving infants, that, by the way, couldn't be any particular god's devotee yet. Maybe they were the children of Kefnet's followers and Bolas was essentially prophesying their own destiny even if they couldn't understand him... Well, that actually makes a lot of sense! And it also looks to me like something Boals would totally do! I'm not sure if you intended it to be this way, but it actually works really well.
Polish (2.5/3) Quality - A full stop is missing at the end of the first ability (-0.5). The box around the card is not needed, but that isn't worth a point deduction (in fact I just removed it while copying the card from your post). That typo is the only real formatting error. Not bad for your first try! (2/2) Main Challenge - Good. (2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
Total: 21.5/25
Wretched Eternal1BB
Creature - Zombie Insect [UNC]
Afflict X (Whenever this creature becomes blocked, defending player loses X life, where X is the number of Deserts you control.) "An eternal was created for every purpose and once they have served my needs, they will continue on this plane, proliferating, and serving their own needs." - Nicole Bolas
3/3
Design (2.5/3) Appeal - Timmy likes this but he doesn't love it. There are worse cards for him, but also better ones. Johnny has the challenge to maximize this, and Spike could be interested in the result. This is probably a card that everyone can get behind and that does it job just fine but that nobody would be sad if it wasn't there. (2/3) Elegance - Assuming this is worded to work (see Quality), there are no problems on the mechanical side. The flavor text feels a bit off to me and I can't exactly understand why. It's not because of grammar mistakes (I see none), but the way it's written doesn't look like the clearest possible to me.
Development (1/3) Viability - No problems with either the color pie or rarity (reason why this is not a zero). The problem here is that this card doesn't work at all as is because X is not defined (reminder text is not rules text and has no rules effect), so the game would treat it as a zero, as it always does with an undefined X. I have to correct myself, this actually works, but it just has afflict 0, and what's the point in that? I understand how this is supposed to work, but this doesn't work like that as is (also see Quality). This is a functional rules problem, so it has to be taken into account here too. (2/3) Balance - I really feel like this card's playability in any format is heavily tied to that of Deserts. Are Deserts playable? Do you have enough of them in your deck? If that's the case you might play this, but it also means you're in limited. I can't see this in constructed, I don't expect the existing Deserts to be playable there. They are clearly just meant to be a limited mechanic in HOU. So we've ruled out constructed, but how many Deserts would you need to make this playable in limited? My first instinct was "too many", but then I looked again at the stats and I realized that even if you have no Deserts this is still a three-mana 3/3, which is already fine by itself in limited. Not great, but fine. So you could play this even with just a few Deserts, you get the three-mana 3/3 and if you're able to turn on afflict you can see it as a bonus. I also remember an article on the mothership where it was mentioned that they tried scaling effects like this for HOU, but then took them out because there were not enough Deserts for everyone in draft or something like that. No problems in casual and multiplayer.
Creativity (2.5/3) Uniqueness - Afflict X is new, and gets you points here. Now, if it only actually worked as intended... (again see Quality). (2/3) Flavor - The name is good. I have some small problems with the flavor text though (see both Elegance and Quality). I have nothing more to add here to what I've written in those other areas.
Polish (0.5/3) Quality - As it is now, X is not defined and thus the ability does not work. You can't define X in reminder text, because reminder text has no rules effect. It's always treated like it doesn't exist for rules purposes, just like flavor text. For this card to work, it should have said: "Wretched Eternal has afflict X, where X is the number of Deserts you control. (Whenever this creature becomes blocked, defending player loses that much life.)" (-1 for functional mistake). In the flavor text, the attribution should be on its own line (-0.5) with no space after the dash (-0.5), that should be long by the way, here as in the type line. No deduction for that though as you may be subject to the infamous-by-now non-Latin character antispam restriction. Finally, it's Nicol Bolas, not "Nicole" (-0.5). The final "e" should not be there, also because Nicole is a female name (at least in Italian but I'm almost certain in English too, but then again in Italian Andrea is a strict male name...). If I remember correctly, Nicole Bolas with the "e" was a female character from Maro's Sparks series (maybe the name of Nicol Bolas's sister before she was named Penny?), and that is as fas from canon as it can get. (2/2) Main Challenge - Good. (2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
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.)
Finished, but changes may be made prior to the deadline.
Blightflame Exarch2RR
Creature - Jackal Cleric {U}
Afflict 6 (Whenever this creature becomes blocked, defending player loses 6 life.) Rejoice under the flames of the God-Pharaoh in the hour of devastation.
2/2
Design - (1.5/3) Appeal: Less experienced Timmies think this reads "sometimes, this will deal 6 damage on an attack!", but the other half realize the implications of such a hefty penalty for blocking it (see Elegance). Johnny's head is spinning considering combos with lure effects, which is where my mind initially went. Spike absolutely cannot be bothered. He'll still play it in limited, but he won't be thrilled to open it in draft or anything (unless some Johnny deckbuilder has already demonstrated a viable combo). (1/3) Elegance: I won't dock points twice for a mismatch in name & mechanical flavor (See Flavor), so all there is to say here is that the card will not do what it looks like it was designed to do. The way it will almost always play out in practice subverts expectations in a disappointing way. Consider your choices as the defending player. Unless you don't think you'll be able to remove this thing within the span of your next four turns after it's played, it never makes sense to block it. Just take the 6 damage in the form of combat damage over three turns instead of all at once (while risking losing a creature in the bargain).
Development - (2.5/3) Viability: No rules are bent. The color wheel is respected, even though in practice, it's a red card with almost unblockable. I guess this is another possible take on conditional unblockability in red. Clunky, but it at least isn't a color bend. (2.5/3) Balance: Initially on reading the card, my snap reaction was "Dang, this is good. Afflict 6 is sick." But as implied in Elegance, It's about on-par with Desert Drake, power-wise (which is fine). It might end up in my deck when I'm drafting red, but it's a toss-up. I would usually be less than thrilled (but not disappointed) at seeing it in the uncommon slot in a pack. Without a way to scare opponents into blocking it, it's a pretty French-vanilla-feeling card to be evaluating for any formats besides limited. I'll go with "not bleh, but certainly meh."
Creativity - (1/3) Uniqueness: It's the biggest afflict value by 2 whole points, which is bold, if not unique. Given the unintended simplicity of how the card will play out, I feel the attempt at uniqueness by way of magnitude alone is a swing and a miss. (1.5/3) Flavor: The name itself sounds excellent and lends itself well to the creature type. However, all the creatures with afflict so far are zombies. That's kind of the whole point, flavor-wise. In future sets that reuse afflict, I suppose there's room for non-zombies getting it, but if/when that happens, it won't be given to clerics named "Brightflame". The flavor here isn't compelling enough to warrant a departure from the precedent of "zombies only". Flavor text was absolutely necessary here to smooth out the clash between the name and mechanics. To that end, you did a good job tying together disparate imagery, but the text itself sounds puerile in contrast to the weightiness that was clearly intended.
Polish - (3/3) Quality: I see no issues. (2/2) *Main Challenge: It's a creature with Afflict (+2) (2/2) Subchallenges: Common (+1), Monored (+1)
Total: 17/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Cerodon Eternal3RR
Creature - Zombie Beast (C)
Afflict 2 (Whenever this creature becomes blocked, defending player loses 2 life.)
Trample (This creature can deal excess combat damage to defending player or planeswalker while attacking.) Gold is a token of honor, but not the final one.
4/4
Design - (2.5/3) Appeal: Not to sound simplistic, but Timmy sees a big trampler with a spicy upside at common and salivates a little. Afflict used in a more straightforward way is a bit on-the-nose for Johnny, but giving it trample opens up some interesting possibilities. Spike sees value written all over this, and loves afflict to begin with. He'd prefer seeing this at a higher rarity, for the purpose of getting signals off of it in draft, but still. He would give this 3 points on his own if he could. (3/3) Elegance: It's simple, in that it has two easy-to understand abilities, but there's an added layer of complexity, thanks to the interaction between trample and afflict. Very nice.
Development - (2/3) Viability: Very red, no issues here. No rules are broken, and it at least has precedence for being common. It's about 1/2 a colored mana more expensive than a similar common, Cinder Hellion, and just a touch more powerful, I'd say. However, I think this P/T combined with such relentlessly oppressive rules text is maybe a bit strong at common, regardless of mana cost. I would have liked it to be balanced a bit differently, and made an uncommon, or even rare. (1.5/3) Balance: Every red deck in limited will play this, and in sealed, it will push a lot of players to go red (or just make ill-advised splashes) for it. So even though it's probably balanced in a vacuum, I could see it having an undesirable warping effect on the limited environment. As it is now, balanced as a common, I don't see it having an impact on constructed play at all.
Creativity - (3/3) Uniqueness: Nothing quite like this has been done, though that's going to be the case with all of these cards. The real triumph here is using a new mechanic to make an old mechanic feel fresh. Balance issues aside, trample and afflict is a match made in heaven. (3/3) Flavor: Yeah! Eternalize that cerodon! Every element of the card syncs together flavorfully. Excellent job keeping the design focused around plane-relevant, accessible flavor. The flavor text is the cherry on top, with the reference to the original cerodon being gilded. It might be a bit oblique for someone who doesn't pay close attention to art or flavor in general (or someone just coming to the game), but I fully expect the art would be able to clear up any confusion. This card is a flavor slam dunk.
Polish - (2.5/3) Quality: In a non-core set, reminder text for evergreen abilities isn't necessary (-.5) (2/2) *Main Challenge:It's a creature with afflict (+2) (2/2) Subchallenges: Common (+1), Monored (+1)
Total: 21.5/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Alzelal the WoundedR
Legendary Creature - Human Wizard (M)
Afflict 5 (Whenever this creature becomes blocked, defending player loses 5 life.)
Alzelal, the Wounded can't block. "There are rare cases where we break formation in an assault. This is one of them."
- Rayel, Defensive Coordinator
3/1
Design - (2/3) Appeal: It's a powerful, exciting card. Timmy's all about that life. Breaking this more than it already is would be difficult. It's a bit too obvious for Johnny's taste. Spike just audibly moaned. He can't wait to cast this thing on every first turn forever until it gets banned. (2/3) Elegance: I personally found the contrast between tiny mana cost and MOAB-grade power to be quite jarring. It took a couple of reads to make sure I hadn't misinterpreted it. Nothing is complicated to understand at all on its own, though.
Development - (2.5/3) Viability: It definitely feels very red. Even maybe TOO red, even for a red card It could be nothing other than mythic rare, so yeah, that much is right. Now... "Does it break or bend the rules of the game?" Not TECHNICALLY, but there has never been a 3/n one-drop printed with no tangible drawback (Yes, I realize it can't block), and this even has a sizable upside. Normally, this kind of thing would be covered in the Balance score (which it will be), but I feel it's such a departure from Magic design principles, that it enters into "breaking the rules" territory. I'm only subtracting half-a-point for it here, though. (0/3) Balance: I believe I explained my scoring decision well enough in Viability. Even a 1-mana 3/1 that can't block would be utterly unprintable, let alone one that deincentivizes it BEING blocked! This would destroy any format it was legal in. I'm no vintage expert, but I'm sure it would see play as far up as that.
Creativity - (2/3) Uniqueness: "Has a card like this ever been printed before?" Hahaha, yes and no. balance issues aside, this is, at its core, a cheap, aggressive creature that opponents won't want to block. Not an uncommon design concept, though the "can't block" ability has never been printed alongside the kind of block trigger present with afflict. Besides that, the steep afflict value does make it feel a bit more fresh than the usual fare. (Fun fact: Only two rare cards with CMC3 or less and "Whenever ~ becomes blocked..." have been printed, and they're both... blue?) (1.5/3) Flavor: All the creatures with afflict so far are zombies. That's kind of the whole point, flavor-wise. I understand the intended flavor here: wounded soldier becomes more dangerous when he's fighting for his life. So he's all-in on the all-out attack plan, heedless of tactics, or even his original objectives. He must kill or be killed. So why is he a wizard instead of a soldier, or warrior, or berserker? Is it because you were looking for a way for the affliction to make sense flavor-wise? Well, that's why he needed to be a zombie. I like everything else here, and the flavor text complements the rest of the card nicely. But the creature type is a flavor fail, considering how swingy he is, and the zombies-only aspect of afflict should have been respected, regardless. On a less important note, I think his name should be "Alzelal, Wounded [whatever he is]". As you have it formatted, Wounded sounds a bit like his official title. No points deducted here; it's just a minor qualm.
Polish - (3/3) Quality: I see no issues. Wizards has been inconsistent with implementation of the comma between proper names and titles, so the format of the card's name is fine (even though it wants a comma to my eye). (2/2) *Main Challenge:It's a creature with afflict (+2) (1/2) Subchallenges: Mythic Rare (+0), Monored (+1)
Total: 16/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Nitin Caretaker1G
Creature – Naga Druid (U)
When Nitin Caretaker dies, you may search your library for a basic land card, put it onto the battlefield tapped, then shuffle your library.
Eternalize - Sacrifice three lands (Sacrifice three lands, exile this card from your graveyard: Create a token that's a copy of it, except it's a 4/4 black Zombie Naga Druid with no mana cost. Eternalize only as a sorcery.) Don't we turn over clumps of dirt in order to get a rich crop? We cultivated a little garden, but the God Pharaoh grows a paradise for us to inhabit!
0/2
Design - (2/3) Appeal: Timmy says meh. Payoff takes too much effort for him, and the eternalize cost looks steeep. Johnny knows that Ramunap Excavator and Crucible of Worlds exist, and there are all manner of ways to benefit from "paying" a cost of discarding a card, so he's all-in. Spike doesn't like the initial slowness, but sees potential in a "free" 4/4 if he can get this in the graveyard without much fuss. I'm giving full Spike points, but it's more like 0.75, I think. (1.5/3) Elegance: Nothing is too weird complicated, but the stark difference in strategies of the two abilities make me go "huh?". I get that his first ability helps pay his eternalize cost, but it only gets you 1/3 of the way there. Then once it's changed its tactics and razed three of your lands, it goes back to being a good little cultivator once it dies again. Just kind of disjointed, mechanically. Also, would have loved to see some mention of deserts because of how well this works with Hostile Desert and Dunes of the Dead. Bit of a missed opportunity for a tie-in between the stated mechanics and the ways the card will actually be used. Still, though. Nice set-aware interactions, if they were intentional
Development - (1/3) Viability: The death trigger is perfectly green, but seems kind of lackluster for uncommon rarity, especially on a wimpy 0/2. The eternalize ability is much more uncommon-appropriate, but sacrificing multiple lands for a non-land-ramp payoff is NOT green. At all. There have been exactly two monogreen cards printed with activated abilities or alternate costs that call for multiple land sacrifices, and both of them immediately replace all of the sacced lands. If the card were (R/G) or (B/G), it would make sense, but definitely not monogreen. (3/3) Balance: I see plenty of opportunities for use across formats. Definitely in limited, where the second ability could be all but ignored without much concern (but when actually used intelligently would sometimes just wreck shop. Free late-game 4/4s sounds spicy as hell). Fitting this into constructed decks would require find ways to yard this without the rigamarole of waiting for it to die in combat. Perhaps in a control deck that could use it for early game chumping, then force incidental value out of it later with a board wipe. Thinking about it this way makes me feel less weird about giving the full point for Spike earlier. Even without the second ability, there are multiple ways to twist this dude into a better Rampant Growth. Creativity - (2/3) Uniqueness: Pre-eternalize, it's just a weaker Primal Druid, which is a pretty recent card to be carbon-copying. However, the eternalize ability is definitely a novel approach. Even though this isn't the card for it, I do greatly like the idea of this particular alternate cost for eternalize. (1.5/3) Flavor: I covered this in Elegance already, but the flavor of the card suffers as well due to the mismatch between the two abilities. One gives you land when the thing dies, then you can undo all his work and then some to bring him back as a beefcake that... gives you another land when he dies? It would be exceedingly tricky to fluff this delicately enough to make it cohesive in the slightest. You're on the right track, having the character himself kind of acknowledge the internal flavor contradiction, but I still don't understand exactly what he's getting at in the flavor text. I will say that I adore how it's formatted in such a parable-esque way. You're getting a full point for the fantastic execution of flavor text, even if it doesn't get all the way there for me.
Polish - (2 3/3) Quality:First ability should read: "When Nitin Caretaker dies, you may search your library for a basic land card. If you do, put it onto the battlefield tapped, then shuffle your library." (Taking a full point because this alters the function of the card, albeit subtly). (As it turns out, there is in fact plenty of precedence for this wording, as Exodus87 pointed out privately. It should have been made obvious to me during my card search, especially since the card I linked above features the exact same wording. I still think it sounds very wrong to have so much happen off of a single invocation of "you may [action]", but if it's good enough for Oracle, it's good enough for the MCC. Point restored.) The italics of the eternalize reminder text begins after the parentheses are opened. No points deducted for such a minor formatting oopsie, but do be careful. (2/2) *Main Challenge:It's a creature with eternalize (+2) (1/2) Subchallenges: Uncommon (+1), Monogreen (+0)
Total: 17/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Eternal of Fangs3B
Creature - Zombie Naga Cleric [Uncommon]
Afflict 2 (Whenever this creature becomes blocked, defending player loses 2 life.) 2B: Create a 1/1 black Snake creature token with deathtouch. Activate this ability only if Eternal of Fangs dealt combat damage to a player this turn.
1/4
Design - (2.5/3) Appeal: As a self-identified JOHNNY/timmy, I'm all about this card, personally. My T is like, "I'm gonna make a snake EVERY TURN", and my Johnny is like, "All I need is some respectable ramp, and I can pump out multiple snakes EVERY TURN!. Spike loves forcing situations with no good options for his opponents generally, but doesn't like putting too much of his strategy on the table like this. (3/3) Elegance: There's that same pleasing layer of complexity as with Raptorchan's own afflicting eternal, but I'd say this one goes a little bit deeper for an even more exciting "aha!" moment. All of the mechanical elements play well together, such that the card is more than the sum of its parts, and yet not over-designed or too complicated.
Development - (3/3) Viability: Totally viable. It could almost be printed as-is, but the one issue I see is more a balance concern. Uncommon is correct, but then I thought Frontline Devastator should have been uncommon. Maybe my rare-ometer is miscalibrated for afflict? (Having played with and against the Devastator several times at the prerelease, I don't think it is). (2.5/3) Balance: As noted in Johnny's impression of the card, the way it's worded, you can create as many snakes as you can afford so long as the requirement is met. I'm of the opinion that this is too potentially exploitable. It should be a single-use death trigger, I think. Still, that wouldn't come up too often, and really only in Johnny-tastic constructed decks built around it. It might never be an issue in actual fact, so I'm only taking half a point. I see no balance problems besides this, and can see it not only being prized in limited (duh), but also potentially standard-playable. As-written, any Pharika and/or Hapatra player wants this, too.
Creativity - (2.5/3) Uniqueness: So aside from their second abilities, this is exactly a less-good, black Wildfire Eternal, another humanoid eternal. They also both have "rock-and-a-hard-place" abilities focused on their affliction. It IS a unique take on a way to incentivize blocking an afflict creature, though. I can't give full points, but I do appreciate the creativity in the card's design. It's just an existing card shell, which would be no big deal if afflict wasn't so new an ability, and there weren't so few cards with that ability to get inspiration from. (3/3) Flavor: Full marks. Everything works together seamlessly. You even followed the template for naming eternals of intelligent races (rather than just "Naga Eternal") I would have loved to see some flavor text; there is room fr it. But not because it's needed in order to make sense of the card's flavor. Not every card needs flavor text.
Actually, here is a PSA for all MTG designers, amateur and pro alike:
NOT ALL CARDS NEED FLAVOR TEXT. NO FLAVOR TEXT IS FAR BETTER THAN DUMB FLAVOR TEXT.
Polish - (3/3) Quality: I see no issues. (2/2) *Main Challenge:It's a creature with eternalize (+2) (2/2) Subchallenges: Uncommon (+1), Monoblack (+1)
Total: 23.5/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Gustcaller Adept2U
Creature — Human Wizard [U]
Whenever a creature you control with power 4 or greater attacks, it gains flying until end of turn.
Eternalize 5UU(5UU, Exile this card from your graveyard: Create a token that's a copy of it, except it's a 4/4 black Zombie Human Wizard with no mana cost. Eternalize only as a sorcery.) "The skies deserve to be ruled by the worthy."
2/2
Design - (3/3) Appeal: Timmy might initially be disappointed that it doesn't give itself flying unless you can eternalize it, but I think he'll quickly come all the way around on this. He already loves chucking big dudes at faces, and this makes all of his big dudes better big dudes. Johnny, while less excited about the prospect of flying rhinos, sees a lot of room for supplementing this card's triggered ability with an otherwise mediocre teamwide pump effect for the sick synergy. Spike likes having ways to squeeze value out of his plays without having to wait to untap with them, and the fact that its eternalize ability nets you more than just a 4/4 version of the card (It now triggers itself when it attacks) means there aren't many games he won't be able to get SOME value out of this, even if things go horribly wrong. (3/3) Elegance: Another very, very elegant and interesting implementation of the keywords in the challenge. It becomes a slightly different (better) card as a 4/4, making the eternalize ability more than just a consolation prize or removal deterrent. All the moving parts mesh together snugly.
Development - (1/3) Viability: Aite, so... Blue cards in Khans of Tarkir got away with caring about creatures with large power because of a dumb set mechanic (Ferocious) that I feel egregiously bent blue to the breaking point. This card doesn't even benefit from its set having a Beefcake-Matters theme, and so blue is the exact wrong color to be featuring it. The bit about granting flying to a whole class of creatures? Perfectly acceptable, just not this class of creatures. It could have been balanced different to allow zombies to get flying, rather than bigdudes. That would have worked, and would have jibed even better with the rest of the card's flavor Also, this is a rare in uncommon's clothing. You'd have been just as well-off balancing it as a rare and sacrificing one bonus point. (1/3) Balance: Whether this card is totally broken or not will depend on how many on-curve or better 4-power creatures (especially with haste) share the limited/standard formats with it. Right now, we have Ovalchase Dragster, Fleetwheel Cruiser, Heart of Kiran, Lathnu Hellion, Bloodmad Vampire/Stromkirk Mentor, and more, all of which just about bust this card wide open. Even in Hour od Devastation itself, we have Ammit Eternal which would be disgusting paired with this. There are way more synergistic options in the current standard alone than I thought I'd find. In eternal formats, it's both more and less busted — far more options for 4-power flying beatsicks, but also more available ways to deal with this card. I see it being banned in standard, and having a bunch of spicy brews featuring it trying to break into the modern scene. Suffice it to say, I do not think this card is balanced, but not egregiously so.
Creativity - (3/3) Uniqueness: OK, now back to the good stuff. The card is wildly creative, as implied earlier. Balance aside, I definitely want to see some version of this card printed. It's powerful, but in uncommon and often unexpected ways. Full marks here from me. (2.5/3) Flavor: Not much to say, except "Nice work." The name fits the abilities. The creature type is appropriate. The flavor text is spot-on. Understanding "the worthy" to mean Nicky B's eternals, it aptly references the 4-power clause of its first ability. Very nice, though as mentioned, balancing it to care about attacking zombies instead of meat-heads would have tied the flavor together even better.
Polish - (3/3) Quality: I see no issues. Initially, I thought the quote in the flavor text needed an attribution, but one of my favorite flavor texts of all time cleared that right up for me. (2/2) *Main Challenge:It's a creature with eternalize (2/2) Subchallenges: Uncommon (+1), Monoblue (+1)
Total: 20.5/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Bloated Crocodile4UU
Creature — Crocodile (C)
Bloated Crocodile can't attack unless you control a Zombie.
Eternalize 3UU(3UU, Exile this card from your graveyard: Create a token that's a copy of it, except it's 4/4 black Zombie Crocodile with no mana cost.)
5/5
Design - (1/3) Appeal: Timmy isn't exactly ecstatic about a 5/5 for 6, even if it fits into his cheeky zombie tribal strategy. But he'll gladly pick this in draft if he can get his zombie train going. There's not much for Johnny to work with here, and Spike sees at best a 5/5 for 5 if he can pitch it, which isn't terrible for a blue creature. He's not even considering playing for its mana cost, though, even in limited. (3/3) Elegance: Everything is executed elegantly, and you managed to find a drawback that has neat synergy with afflict.
Development - (2/3) Viability: It's very blue, in that it's an above-curve fatty with a downside, and common is the correct rarity here. Now, I don't understand why this is less expensive to eternalize than to cast from your hand. Like a lot of eternalizers, this gets better because it's a 4/4 zombie (apart from it just being bigger), and this should definitely be reflected in its eternalize cost. It could have easily been a 5/5 for 4U with eternalize 4UU. (1/3) Balance: Being honest, this is straight-up limited filler. It won't see any constructed play, and won't even show up in most blue limited decks. I guess every set has to have a few cards like this, but I wouldn't expect to see them in a design contest.
Creativity - (2.5/3) 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”? (1/3) Flavor: There was plenty of room for some flavor text, and it would have been welcome here. I'm unsure exactly why the crocodile is bloated, and what that has to do with zombies? Is he bloated like corpses bloat? Or because he ate a bunch of zombies, and if so, why would he only be able to attack when dessert is hanging around? A creature with eternalize is supposed to be special in some way, unlike embalm, which was the opposite. Even the cat is adorned. The crocodile isn't special; he's just bloated. As mentioned, though, I do like the interplay between his first and second abilities. Getting better when he's a zombie is good mechanical flavor.
Polish - (3/3) Quality: I see no issues. (2/2) *Main Challenge:It's a creature with eternalize (2/2) Subchallenges: Common (+1), Monoblue (+1)
Total: 17.5/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Creature - Zombie Beast (U)
Double Strike
Afflict 3 (Whenever this creature becomes blocked, defending player loses three life.)
The waters of the Luxa turned to blood, the newly dead piled upon its banks, and ancient horrors that were long forgotten began to emerge from the crimson pools.
1/3
Artifact Creature - Golem (U)
Trample
Eternalize 5U (5U, Exile this card from your graveyard: Create a token that's a copy of it, except it's a 4/4 black Zombie Golem with no mana cost. Eternalize only as a sorcery.)
Not all who wander are lost, as not all who are worthy are fully alive.
2/2
Check out my Newborder Peasant Cube here! http://www.cubetutor.com/draft/37467
True Name Mafia (Win),Clan Contest IX Mafia (Win), Bravely Default Mafia (Loss), BOTAS (loss), BfV (Loss), Ace Attourney (loss)
Rules Advisor before they were eradicated
Creature - Human Warrior (U)
As long The Dark Soul is a Zombie gets Afflict 3 (Whenever this creature becomes blocked, defending player loses 5 life.)
Eternalize Pay 5 life (Pay 5 life, Exile this card from your graveyard: Create a token that's a copy of it, except it's 4/4 black Zombie Elemental with no mana cost.)
2/1
Creature - Wurm Horror (U)
Afflict 4 (Whenever Blighted Sandwurm becomes blocked, defending player loses 4 life.)
Whenever Blighted Sandwurm attacks and isn't blocked, you may put a -1/-1 counter on target creature defending player controls.
The failure of the Hekma left the inhabitants of Naktamun vulnerable to the unspeakable horrors of the desert wastes.
0/5
Creature - Human Rogue (U)
Triumphant of Guile can't be blocked except by creatures with the same power.
Eternalize (4UU, Exile this card from your graveyard: Create a token that's a copy of it, except it's a 4/4 black Zombie Human Wizard with no mana cost. Eternalize only as a sorcery.)
2/1
Creature — Crocodile (C)
Bloated Crocodile can't attack unless you control a Zombie.
Eternalize 3UU (3UU, Exile this card from your graveyard: Create a token that's a copy of it, except it's 4/4 black Zombie Crocodile with no mana cost.)
5/5
Creature - Human Cleric {R}
When Magus of Living End enters the battlefield, destroy target creature or non-Bolas planeswalker with converted mana cost less than Magus of Living End's power.
Eternalize 4BB (4BB, Exile this card from your graveyard: Create a token that's a copy of it, except it's 4/4 black Zombie Human Cleric with no mana cost. Eternalize only as a sorcery.)
He loves God Pharaoh's work. He will end the weaklings that God Pharaoh doesn't bother.
2/2
BRACKETS
Top 4 from each bracket advance to the next round.
Judge: bravelion83
Conntroll
Forestsguy
JamBlock
kjsharp
SnowBlack1021
Sub_Silentio
TheRealStinkyJoeTerry
Judge: StonerOfKruphix
BlackWaltz3
Cardz5000
doomfish
iphanx
Jimmy Groove
Koopa
sperlman
Judge: Rocco
admirableadmiral
Exodus87
Freyleyes
glurman
Raptorchan
Tesco(black)lotus
willows
Judge: Blydden
IcariiFA
LnGrrrR
mirrodin71
Necarg
netn10
The_Hittite
void_nothing
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.)
(1/3) Appeal: Timmy would be thoroughly bored by this non-interactive card.
Johnny would surely be at least somewhat intrigued by the nuances of this card’s first line of rules text.
Spike might find this card more interesting in the hand or in the graveyard rather than on the battlefield. Truly, it is finding the right time to play either half of the card that requires skill; once this creature resolves onto the battlefield, it is rather straightforward.
(1.5/3) Elegance: Since this card’s rules text does not say 'base power', we have to start worrying about layers. I will skip the in-depth explanation here; it suffices to say that this is a major inelegance with moderate repercussions.
Otherwise, this card has another inelegance due to its first line of rules text having broad implications that are inconsiderate of its niche differences to unblockable; this is a minor inelegance with minor repercussions.
Development -
(2/3) Viability: High-power evasion has always been in blue; this card’s first line of rules text is likely too complex to allow for an Uncommon.
The main slight against this criterion pertaining to this card is its first line of rules text. It may not be developmentally viable to create this variant of unblockability in exchange for comparatively little gain for the players involved when it comes to this card being played rather than merely spoilt.
(1.5/3) Balance: To summarize, the first half of this card is quite a bit too strong; the second half of this card is ever so slightly too weak.
Should this indeed be the case, the first half of the card is roughly equivalent to a slightly stronger colorshift of a Stormfront Pegasus, a white card. Blue’s fundamental weakness as a color is supposed to be its below-par creatures; whenever this fundamental weakness is subverted (take for example the egregious case of Torrential Gearhulk), the resulting creature can be surprisingly strong as a result. Add in that this evasive 2/1 for 2 also has such a strong upside in the form of Eternalize, and this 2-drop is already too strong to see print.
The eternalized version of this card is comparable to a slightly stronger Air Elemental, a card that is below-par even in blue, the color with the overall weakest creatures. Because of this, I daresay, tentatively, that the eternalized version of this card is ever so slightly too weak, but the non-eternalized version of this card more than makes up for it.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: The eye-catching concept of this card, its first line of rules text, serves to be a unique idea. I doubt that I have seen this ability, this mix of skulk and “daunt” together, on an official card before. Unfortunately, neither half of the idea is particularly unique these days, with skulk having been thoroughly tested and with “daunt” having been done numerous times as well.
(2/3) Flavor: This card name leaves me desiring; “triumph” and “guile” are not exactly the most harmonious combination of words, at least in my humble opinion. Without any flavor text (and this card has no room for flavor text), I am left mildly confused.
Polish -
(1/3) Quality: The first qualitative error in regards to this card is that the first line of rules text is imprecise; I am almost certain that “the same power” cannot suffice in this particular instance (minus half a point).
There is another error, involving this card’s wording of the eternalize ability. Simply put, the eternalize keyword is missing a cost (I had to assume that the eternalize reminder text contained the intended eternalize cost, minus one point).
There is also a minor error in this card’s reminder text; this creature’s type is a Rogue, yet it instructs to create a Wizard token (minus half a point).
(2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge met!
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges met!
Total: 15/25
Final thoughts: Unfortunately, mixing two mechanics together, in this case skulk and daunt, does not necessarily create a card design worth developing. With that premise, I do conclude that replacing the first line of rules text with the simpler ‘CARDNAME can’t be blocked’ would have surely been a step in the right direction.
(1.5/3) Appeal: Timmy likes this card, for it certainly seems and acts quite relentless indeed!
Johnny is left wanting by this simplistic and fair card.
Spike is appealed to by this card, as it can not only serve as four cards in one (a 2/2 for 4 plus a removal spell followed up by a 4/4 for 6 plus a removal spell again), but no one card here is particularly strong in the midgame or late game by itself. Put together, this card can be rather useful, so knowing how to get the most out of it is important.
(3/3) Elegance: No inelegances here (although, see Quality).
Development -
(2/3) Viability: This card is definitely red. However, I do think that this card should be an Uncommon rather than a Common, since it raises several red flags against New World Order at Common. This is mainly because it can accrue an absurd amount of ‘on-board’ advantage at Common.
(2/3) Balance: In a Constructed environment, this card is completely fine. In a Limited environment, multiples of these can lead to an oppressive accruing of on-board advantages against an opponent rather easily, as 1 or 2 toughness creatures are rather normal. Again, at Uncommon, this card would not have this balance issue pertaining to draft environments.
Creativity -
(1/3) Uniqueness: Red deals damage all the time, although the eternalize does help quite a bit here to make the card more unique in practice.
(2/3) Flavor: The adjective “Relentless” in the card name is great, but the noun “Warrior” in the card name is, simply put, not so great.
Furthermore, the flavor text fits nicely on this card, so congratulations are due there. However, this card is only an eternal half of the time, and the flavor text makes minimal sense (at best) on the first half of the card. Where the flavor text would make the most sense and be almost perfectly fitting, on the second half of the card, would be when flavor text would not appear on it, since it is merely a token copy mechanically. The flavor text itself is nicely written, though.
Polish -
(1/3) Quality: Firstly, there is a minor error in the regards to the card’s name in the rules text, since “warrior” has two Rs (minus half a point).
Secondly, all cards that can deal damage in all of Magic: The Gathering specifically designate the source of the damage in the rules text of the card. Thankfully, the source can be obviously inferred to be the creature in this case, so this does not constitute an inelegance (minus one point). The first line of rules text should be written as “When Relentless Warrior enters the battlefield, it deals 2 damage to target creature.”
Thirdly, the left-most parenthesis of this card’s eternalize reminder text is missing (minus half a point).
(2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge met!
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges met!
Total: 16.5/25
Final thoughts: As I was judging this card, I found it to have much in the way of potential. If I were to develop this card design, I would develop it as follows:
Relentless Zealot 2RR
Creature — Minotaur Warrior (U)
When Relentless Zealot enters the battlefield, you may have it deal X damage to target creature, where X is Relentless Zealot’s power.
Eternalize—4RR, Discard a card. (4RR, Discard a card, Exile this card from your graveyard: Create a token that's a copy of it, except it's a 4/4 black Zombie Minotaur Warrior with no mana cost. Eternalize only as a sorcery.)
2/2
And I would have absolutely loved it.
(1/3) Appeal
(2/3) Elegance
Development -
(1/3) Viability
(0.5/3) Balance
Creativity -
(2.5/3) Uniqueness
(2/3) Flavor
Polish -
(0/3) Quality
(2/2) Main Challenge: Both subchallenges met!
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges met!
Total: 13/25
Final thought: mirrodin71, if you would like for me to provide the in-depth critique for this card, please send me a private message personally.
(0.5/3) Appeal: Timmy is bored by this card’s almost complete lack of spectacle.
Johnny is at least interested enough in this card to try and do something or other with it. I am not exactly sure what that is.
Spike would express thorough disinterest towards this bland card.
(3/3) Elegance: To its credit, this is a very clean card.
Development -
(1/3) Viability: Not only trample is tertiary in blue, but I am not sure if it has ever appeared on a small artifact creature before, let alone should.
The rarity of this card is also perhaps off, as it could debatably be Common without meaningfully affecting most draft environments.
This card also goes against the grain of the rest of the embalm and eternalize cards by being an artifact creature. This cannot help but be at least a minor developmental concern.
(1.5/3) Balance: This card has a low score for this criterion simply due to how under the par it is, especially compared to other Uncommons in the Amonkhet block. The three drop is the most desirable creature drop in Limited, but it lacks impact on turn 3 as well as in the late game when it can potentially be eternalized.
Creativity -
(2.5/3) Uniqueness: To be fair to this card, it is quite unique despite so little rules text. The fact that it can become a black artifact also has interesting implications.
(0.5/3) Flavor: First off, how does one make a zombie out of an artifact creature? Exactly how can a golem be mummified?
The name of this card does not seem to be very interesting, and the flavor text makes me feel as though I am on an entirely different plane not called Amonkhet. The trample feels out of place in blue, colorless, and even black.
This card just does not make any sense in terms of flavor.
On the other hand, they did publish an illusion with embalm.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Perfect!
(2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge met!
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges met!
Total: 16/25
Final thought: This card most certainly has both simplicity and novelty going for it.
(1.5/3) Appeal: Simply put, Timmy dislikes this card. Johnny does not find this card very interesting at all.
No, this was a card specially made for Spike through and through. Doubtlessly, Spike loves this card to death.
(3/3) Elegance: Worthily elegant!
Development -
(3/3) Viability: This card is surely black instead of any other color. The rarity of Uncommon is about right, although perhaps this card could be a Rare if needed.
(3/3) Balance: This card is a little pushed, but it does not have the versatility to complement it. Only so many copies of this card can be played safely due to how resource intensive it is in exchange for trying to win the game in a hurry. Again, this card is pushed, but it does have the necessary tradeoffs to be smartly pushed.
Creativity -
(1.5/3) Uniqueness: This card’s most unique element is that the amount of life that has to be paid is variable because of eternalize. In all honesty, that is not half-bad.
(2/3) Flavor: I do dislike the name, simply because ‘worthy’ is not a singular noun. This card’s mechanics are still quite flavorful, however.
No room for flavor text.
Polish -
(2/3) Quality: First off, in the first line of rules text, the word ‘equal’ is misspelled as “equel” (minus half a point).
Secondly, the formatting for the eternalize cost is off. There should be no spaces before or after the dash (which should also be a long dash instead of a short dash ‘—’, minus half a point).
(2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge met!
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges met!
Total: 20/25
Final thought: Do try to remember to proofread your cards before the deadlines of the future!
(1/3) Appeal: This creature is rather small and unexciting for Timmy. Timmy usually likes lords, but this lord is does not feel lordly.
Johnny might be able to do something with giving all creatures afflict, yet I am at a loss as to what it could be.
This is a useful, if color-weighted, creature for Spike to play with.
(3/3) Elegance: Indubitably elegant.
Development -
(2.5/3) Viability: This card definitely works as a black card. However, at Uncommon, this card is heavily constricted to satisfy such a rarity, when it is undying to be an exciting afflict Rare.
(3/3) Balance: Three key facts save this card’s balance score. Firstly, afflict is conditional, and the condition of afflict up to the opponent as to whether it can trigger. Secondly, afflict 1 is a very small upside. Thirdly, this card may be a 2-drop, but it is a color-weighted. Despite all the limitations that have been imposed upon this card, it manages to thrive within them.
Creativity -
(3/3) Uniqueness: Lords are done every set, but an afflict lord has some interesting uniqueness to it. The main reason for such a high uniqueness score is that there is no official 0-drop, 1-drop, or 2-drop lord in all of Magic: The Gathering. There is an odd Rare from Time Spiral, Hivestone, but that is not technically a lord since it is not a creature.
(2/3) Flavor: The flavor of this card is quite sound; the name, flavor text, and rules text all fit together nicely. The problem is that this creature is so small that it feels as though it should be bigger with such a setup, that it should be a scourge all by itself.
Polish -
(1.5/3) Quality: Firstly, the word “Afflict” in the second line of rules text needs to be lowercase (minus half a point). Secondly, there is a sentence of important reminder text needs to be included at the end of that second line of rules text (minus half a point). (If a creature has multiple instances of afflict, each triggers separately.)
Lastly, on any Magic card, the flavor text goes before the power and toughness (minus half a point).
(2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge met!
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges met!
Total: 20/25
Final thoughts: This card really would have been so much more exciting as a rare, though. Oh well.
(1.5/3) Appeal: This creature is really big for Timmy, but that is about it.
Johnny can discard or mill this into a graveyard to play it early for three mana, but otherwise it is rather dull.
Spike can work with this; the main problem for her is that this card goes in reverse compared to the normal progression of a game of Magic.
(1/3) Elegance: This card’s second line of rules text constitutes a moderate inelegance due to both the need for division and the need for rounding in a game that does not often use either. Furthermore, this card’s render is ten lines, which constitutes a severe inelegance.
Development -
(1/3) Viability: This card is most certainly red. However, this card is surely not an Uncommon, as this card is far too unusual to be anything but Rare.
Another severe developmental concern is that this card’s eternalize cost is significantly cheaper than its casting cost, which both goes against the flow of a normal game of Magic and against the very idea of eternalize itself.
(1/3) Balance: Firstly, this downside is likely only relevant in a set with as much random life loss as Hour of Devastation (see afflict, the Torment vertical cycle, et cetera.) Otherwise, an 8/8 trampler for 6 that has decent half-recursion for half as much mana is far too strong for Red. Despite the surprisingly relevant drawback of this card, along with the high mana cost, this card is far too game-ending for 6 mana (or 3 mana if you can cheat out the 4/4 with discard or mill). Truly, the numbers on this card are just way too pushed for their own good.
Creativity -
(3/3) Uniqueness: Never before has the mathematical word “quarter” been used in a line of rules text before on any official Magic card. That alone, regardless of the other unique points of this card, earns a full score for this criterion. Congratulations.
(1/3) Flavor: The name is great. The flavor text is also great (even if there is no room for it on the card itself). However, there are still severe flavor problems present here, like how exactly does one mummify an Elemental?
Also, it is a severe flavor problem that the eternal version of this creature is so much smaller than the creature itself, when eternalize is flavorfully defined to make small creatures bigger and not big creatures smaller.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Perfect!
(2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge met!
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges met!
Total: 15.5/25
Final thought: Here is a fun fact: did you know that lazotep is blue, not red?
The_Hittite — 20
LnGrrrR — 16.5
Necarg — 16
void_nothing — 15.5
IcariiFA — 15
mirrodin71 — 13
If your username has been bolded here, congratulations are in order — you have qualified for Round 2 of the July MCC! Best of luck!
If your username has not been bolded here, there is always next month. Thank you for participating; best of luck next month!
Kefnet's Favored 1U
Creature - Human Wizard (U)
When Kefnet's Favored enters the battlefield, draw a card.
Eternalize 2UU (2UU, Exile this card from your graveyard: Create a token that's a copy of it, except it's a 4/4 black Zombie Human Wizard with no mana cost. Eternalize only as a sorcery.)
One of the few initiates who completed all the trials not by being well-rounded, but through great wit alone.
1/1
Design
(2/3) Appeal - Timmy doesn't care. Johnny and Spike both like the card drawing, the former to dig into library for pieces and the latter for card advantage purposes, even though a Melvin Spike like me just has to point out that when you first cast this it's card parity and it's only actual card advantage when you later eternalize it. That's not a problem in any way, just one thing I had to point out and I couldn't help myself. The life of a Melvin is hard, all those mechanical details to juggle... but Melvin is not a psychographic, as Maro often mentions, so he has no place here. Go back inside myself, Mel!
(3/3) Elegance - All good.
Development
(3/3) Viability - No problems with either the color pie or rarity.
(3/3) Balance - The costs look fine to me. The mana cost is certainly right, as there is precedent, and the eternalize cost feels good to me, and quite strong (a cantripping 4/4 is probably worth more than four mana in a vacuum). This card is certainly very playable in limited even if probably not a first pick, but that's just fine. I would really like a card like this to see constructed play, but Elvish Visionary has been a fringe card at best. I don't know if giving it eternalize is enough for constructed, probably not, sadly, but I wouldn't be surprised to see this pop up somewhere in Standard. I don't see any problem in casual or multiplayer.
Creativity
(1/3) Uniqueness - An eternalize cantrip creature. Technically new, but nothing to write home about.
(2.5/3) Flavor - The name is good. As for the flavor text, that's good too in a vacuum, but I don't exactly understand how one could pass, say, the Trial of Strength only with your intelligence. It's not like there is much to think about when you're surrounded from all sides by giant angry beasts, most of which poisonous. At least in the other non-blue Trials you could apply some tactical thinking. Anyway, I'm making this sound bigger than it really is, it's actually just a small inconsistency.
Polish
(3/3) Quality - All good.
(2/2) Main Challenge - Good.
(2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
Total: 21.5/25
Worthy of Red Lazotep 2RR
Creature - Minotaur Wizard [Uncommon]
Whenever Worthy of Red Lazotep deals combat damage to a player, you may sacrifice it. If you do, it deals damage equal to its power to either that player or all creatures he or she controls.
Eternalize 4RR(4RR, Exile this card from your graveyard: Create a token that's a copy of it, except it's a 4/4 black Zombie Minotaur Wizard with no mana cost. Eternalize only as a sorcery.)
Only the bravest dare channel the power of highly explosive Red Lazotep, which is more likely to kill the initiate than the trials. The Worthy who endure are immortalized in Red Lazotep as living weapons.
2/3
Design
(2/3) Appeal - Timmy likes how this can affect the board. Johnny could probably do something pairing this with evasion-granting and recurring engines. The lack of evasion and relatively small stats really turn Spike down.
(0/3) Elegance - This must be one of the wordiest cards I've ever seen, excluding some very-old-time real Magic craziness from the 90s. First, you can't cut the reminder text as this is not a rare or mythic, in which case it would be unadvised but allowable. Here it's not even allowable. If you copy this in MSE you can see this already fills the text box only with rules text. Let's now keep into account that the rules text should actually be even longer for templating (see Quality) and let's add flavor text. Now we've got an almost unreadable card that goes deep into microtext territory, twelve lines with a very small font once both those things are included. The text would not even be that hard to comprehend, it's just loooong to the point of being unrealistic and just unprintable.
Development
(1.5/3) Viability - No problems with the color pie, but I really can't see this at uncommon. The length, complexity and potential for huge board swings are all factors that push this up to rare. While a single one might still be acceptable at uncommon, all those together really make me say this should totally be a rare.
(3/3) Balance - This definitely looks playable in limited: if you can somehow let it connect reliably, and it's good for balance that this does not have any in-built way, this is 6 damage to the face (2 and then 4 when eternalized) or a pseudo-one-sided-Wrath. You can also do one thing once and the other with the Eternal copy. This looks quite powerful, and potentially worthy (you can choose whether the pun is intended or not) of constructed formats, even if costs look significant there. The choice of which player you should hit with this looks quite interesting in multiplayer.
Creativity
(2.5/3) Uniqueness - Mechanically, letting you choose whether to deal damage to the player or their creatures is a nice twist on known mechanics but nothing more than that. Flavorfully, this is definitely unique.
(2.5/3) Flavor - I feel like the flavor here is something I either love or hate, I'm just not sure which way I'm leaning on, but there's no middle ground here. That's what happens when one invents new would-be-story-relevant flavor that's not how we're seeing things being in canon. The flavor text here is essentially fan-fiction. I love the creativity and the will to expand our knowledge of the worlds we visit, after all it's often said that Magic is a game all about exploration. I don't love ("hate" is actually too strong of a word) the feeling of contradiction with what we already know about the world and what is officially canon. At least that facet is minimized in this particular card, as there are no actual flavor contradictions here, just an alternate unofficial fate for some of the Worthy. I think this makes me lean towards the "let's appreciate the creativity" side in this particular case, even if one needs to pay attention when doing such things.
Polish
(1.5/3) Quality - A space is missing between the eternalize cost and the reminder text (-0.5). Also, "...either that player or..." is clearly not standard templating (-0.5). The easiest solution is probably turning this into a modal ability:
"... If you do, choose one -
• Worthy of Red Lazotep deals damage equal to its power to defending player.
• Worthy of Red Lazotep deals damage equal to its power to all creatures defending player controls."
Mentioning defending player works because when the ability triggers we're still in the combat phase, in the combat damage step specifically, so a defending player is still defined and will be for quite some more time (until the end of combat step is over and we enter the second main phase). Also, this template makes the card more wordy, but I feel like that's not a problem here as the text is already unrealistically long (see Elegance). Finally, no need for power and toughness to be bolded (-0.5).
(2/2) Main Challenge - Good.
(2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
Total: 17/25
Eternal Visionary 1U
Creature - Jackal Wizard (C)
When Eternal Visionary enters the battlefield, scry X, where X is its power.
Eternalize 6U (6U, Exile this card from your graveyard: Create a token that's a copy of it, except it's a 4/4 black Zombie Jackal Wizard with no mana cost. Eternalize only as a sorcery.)
1/3
Design
(1.5/3) Appeal - Timmy doesn't care. Both Jonny and Spike like this a lot as they both love scry: Johnny looks for pieces and Spike sets up his draws. Spike doesn't like the high eternalize cost though.
(3/3) Elegance - Exemplar. A lesson in how to make an elegant common.
Development
(3/3) Viability - Everything is in color. For once, this is a custom card I can actually see at common even under NWO. You just gave everyone another lesson, this time in how to make a good common, and that's way harder than it looks.
(2.5/3) Balance - This is a typical card made for limited play, and there is nothing wrong with that. Every set has a big number of those, they usually take up the best part of any set actually. This looks pretty good in limited by the way, even if it honestly has no chance of seeing any kind of constructed competitive play, but I really feel like it wasn't meant to, so it's not a problem. This card is good at what it was meant to do, even it you admittedly played it safe with the eternalize cost. I can't really blame you for that though, a 4/4 that lets you scry 4 when it enters can be quite relevant. No problems in casual or multiplayer.
Creativity
(1.5/3) Uniqueness - Eternalize meets scry, aka a block mechanics meets an evergreen one. Good mix-and-match but nothing groundbreaking. Now if the other mechanic was also a block mechanic instead of an evergreen one...
(2/3) Flavor - The name is good and fits very well with the mechanics, not just "Eternal" with eternalize (that's pretty much of a given, as all Eternals have either afflict or eternalize also in the real HOU set), but especially the word "Visionary" with scry, and I want to prize that. Too bad there is no flavor text here to be judged, even if there is certainly room for it in this card. It also feels a bit strange to see a Khenra (creature type Jackal) in blue as the living non-Zombie ones are typically a Gruul-colored tribe in Amonkhet, but it's a good way to show the transformation this particular Khenra has undergone when eternalized. It's essentially the same trick that was used in Khenra Eternal in the real HOU set, so I guess that's not actually a problem.
Polish
(3/3) Quality - All good. Reminder text for scry is not needed because now it's evergreen.
(2/2) Main Challenge - Good.
(2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
Total: 20.5/25
Rabid Hyena 1R
Creature – Hyena (U)
First strike, afflict 2 (Whenever this creature becomes blocked, defending player loses 2 life.)
You may exert Rabid Hyena as it attacks. When you do, target creature blocks it this combat if able. (An exerted creature won't untap during your next untap step.)
Those that continued to hunt in packs starved to death.
2/1
Design
(2/3) Appeal - Timmy likes how this affects the board and can let him get through with his creatures. He also likes afflict because his opponent takes damage whatever they do (I know it's technically life loss and not damage, but you get what I mean). I don't see much to do for Johnny. Spike likes the pair of first strike and afflict.
(3/3) Elegance - No problems here.
Development
(3/3) Viability - No problems with either the color pie or rarity.
(3/3) Balance - This looks pushed. Once, a 2/1 for 1R would have had to be vanilla or needed a drawback if it had first strike and would have probably been unplayable anywhere. Today, red is allowed to have a 2/2 vanilla or a 2/1 first strike with an additional upside for that cost (yes, the Chaser technically has two more abilities but they're really connected so they kind of count as one), but this actually has even more additional upside. In limited, I really feel this would already be playable even without first strike. With that too, I can see it being tried out in some aggressive red constructed decks. Standard, obviously. In bigger formats I think there are still better options. I see no particular problems in casual or multiplayer.
Creativity
(2.5/3) Uniqueness - A mix-and-match card mixing two block keywords (afflict and exert) that have not been mixed in their original block. That's quite good here.
(2/3) Flavor - Afflict is reserved for Bolas's Eternals in the real HOU set, in fact all cards with afflict in the set are Zombies, which this is not. This looks like "just" one of the many dangerous beasts that live in the desert of Amonkhet, and I feel like afflict could also work to represent the "Rabid" aspect of this Hyena. This creature isn't afflicting you because it's an Eternal but just because it's rabid. It can work, even if it goes a bit outside of the treaded path. It could also be that you meant this Hyena to be an Eternal and the lacking Zombie creature type was just an oversight. Anyway, that's my only remark here, everything else works just fine.
Polish
(2.5/3) Quality - When one keyword needs reminder text (in this case afflict) and one does not (in this case first strike), they need to be on separate lines (-0.5).
(2/2) Main Challenge - Good.
(2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
Total: 22/25
Magus of Living End 2B
Creature - Human Cleric {R}
When Magus of Living End enters the battlefield, destroy target creature or non-Bolas planeswalker with converted mana cost less than Magus of Living End's power.
Eternalize 4BB (4BB, Exile this card from your graveyard: Create a token that's a copy of it, except it's 4/4 black Zombie Human Cleric with no mana cost. Eternalize only as a sorcery.)
He loves God Pharaoh's work. He will end the weaklings that God Pharaoh doesn't bother.
2/2
Design
(2/3) Appeal - Timmy likes to play with this but hates to play against this. I don't see much for Johnny here. Spike just loves this card. He has a soft spot for creatures that affect the board while also doubling up as removal spells.
(0.5/3) Elegance - While the text is not too long (reason why this is not a zero) and relatively easy to understand (less experienced players would probably have to pause for a moment to get that this compares a value of cmc with one of power, but that's not the big problem), this card still feels off as an overall entity, and that's mainly due to setting expectations and then not delivering. This card's concept builds on things that already have specific meaning: in modern-era Magic, the Magi (or whatever the plural of Magus is) are all Human Wizard (not Cleric) creatures with an ability that mimics a famous card from the past, such as, you guess it, Living End. So you'd expect a Wizard that somehow exchanges creatures on the battlefield and in graveyards. Well, that's... not exactly what we have here. It makes you feel like you were supposed to get something and then you get something else completely unrelated...
Development
(3/3) Viability - No problems with either the color pie or rarity. Actually, I want to point out that you did the right thing by ignoring the rarity subchallenge, as this card has to be rare for sure, this is not what's preventing you from advancing. If the other problems weren't there, not only this would not have been an obstacle but it would have actually been the right choice.
(3/3) Balance - All the eternalize cards checking the creature's power are quite interesting, because they use the stats upgrade granted by eternalize to good effect. It's not by chance that this kind of cards make up the majority of all the cards with eternalize in HOU. This card makes no exception. It removes a small thing in the early game and then comes back to hunt bigger game, even if this is not M15 anymore and Garruk is not involved. This is still something he would do, anyway. But let's get back to the card. It's certainly playable in limited and I think it might also have some constructed implications. Also, the planeswalker clause gets more relevant in constructed. The costs look good to me and I don't see any problems in casual or multiplayer.
Creativity
(2/3) Uniqueness - I think the phrase "non-Bolas planeswalker" was only seen in the appropriately-named Hour of Devastation, so that still feels quite new even if you took it from a real card. Comparing cmc with power is also original, even if a bit complex but that's not what we're looking at here. Overall, this card mechanically feels like a nice twist on eternalize.
(1.5/3) Flavor - Unfortunately, the name doesn't really work as I've already explained (see Elegance). The flavor text doesn't feel that professional either, mainly because of missing articles (see Quality). It's a form issue, not a substance one. The substance is good enough.
Polish
(1.5/3) Quality - The reminder text for eternalize is missing an "a": "...except it's a 4/4..." (-0.5). In the flavor text, "the" is missing right before each instance of "God-Pharaoh" (two times -0.5 makes -1).
(2/2) Main Challenge - Good.
(1/2) Subchallenges - Monoblack color identity but rare.
Total: 16.5/25
First of all, let me welcome you to the MCC. May this be the first participation of a long series. Check out the other contests too if you feel like.
Promised Oracle 1U
Creature - Naga Wizard (U)
U, T, Sacrifice Promised Oracle: Counter target spell unless its controller pays X, where X is Promised Oracle's power
Eternalize 3UU (3UU, Exile this card from your graveyard: Create a token that's a copy of it, except it's a 4/4 black Zombie Naga Wizard with no mana cost. Eternalize only as a sorcery.)
The God-Pharaoh told Kefnet's devotees that they would be remembered. He neglected to mention how.
1/2
Design
(2/3) Appeal - Timmy doesn't care. Johnny might do something with recurring engines. Spike is the one this card is for, and he really likes it. A creature with Force Spike that later turns into one with Convolute is definitely something he can get behind.
(3/3) Elegance - I see no problems here.
Development
(3/3) Viability - No problems with either the color pie or rarity.
(2.5/3) Balance - I'm honestly not a big fan of this kind of cards, because the opponent can see it coming. It loses the surprise value of a counterspell in your hand, and that is relevant. They can play around it in an easier way. Still, this is certainly playable in limited. I'd be a bit surprised to see this in Standard, but it might be possible as a sideboard play for blue control decks to bring in against aggro decks, maybe. I see no particular problems in casual or multiplayer.
Creativity
(2/3) Uniqueness - A simple but functional twist on eternalize. No existing creatures have a counterspell ability where the mana paid is tied to the creature's power. The closest existing thing is Spell Rupture, which is quite different. It still feels kind of similar to Glen Elendra Archmage though: a creature that sacrifices itself to counter a spell and then has a way to come back to do it again.
(2.5/3) Flavor - The name is fine and the flavor text is really good. I just have a minor remark regarding the timing of Nicol Bolas telling that to Kefnet's worshippers: when Nicol Bolas last came to Amonkhet 60 years ago, he killed everyone but the toddlers and then he was not seen until just now, so when did he exactly tell them that? Well, I guess he could just have talked to those surviving infants, that, by the way, couldn't be any particular god's devotee yet. Maybe they were the children of Kefnet's followers and Bolas was essentially prophesying their own destiny even if they couldn't understand him... Well, that actually makes a lot of sense! And it also looks to me like something Boals would totally do! I'm not sure if you intended it to be this way, but it actually works really well.
Polish
(2.5/3) Quality - A full stop is missing at the end of the first ability (-0.5). The box around the card is not needed, but that isn't worth a point deduction (in fact I just removed it while copying the card from your post). That typo is the only real formatting error. Not bad for your first try!
(2/2) Main Challenge - Good.
(2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
Total: 21.5/25
Wretched Eternal 1BB
Creature - Zombie Insect [UNC]
Afflict X (Whenever this creature becomes blocked, defending player loses X life, where X is the number of Deserts you control.)
"An eternal was created for every purpose and once they have served my needs, they will continue on this plane, proliferating, and serving their own needs." - Nicole Bolas
3/3
Design
(2.5/3) Appeal - Timmy likes this but he doesn't love it. There are worse cards for him, but also better ones. Johnny has the challenge to maximize this, and Spike could be interested in the result. This is probably a card that everyone can get behind and that does it job just fine but that nobody would be sad if it wasn't there.
(2/3) Elegance - Assuming this is worded to work (see Quality), there are no problems on the mechanical side. The flavor text feels a bit off to me and I can't exactly understand why. It's not because of grammar mistakes (I see none), but the way it's written doesn't look like the clearest possible to me.
Development
(1/3) Viability - No problems with either the color pie or rarity (reason why this is not a zero). The problem here is that this card doesn't work at all as is because X is not defined (reminder text is not rules text and has no rules effect), so the game would treat it as a zero, as it always does with an undefined X. I have to correct myself, this actually works, but it just has afflict 0, and what's the point in that? I understand how this is supposed to work, but this doesn't work like that as is (also see Quality). This is a functional rules problem, so it has to be taken into account here too.
(2/3) Balance - I really feel like this card's playability in any format is heavily tied to that of Deserts. Are Deserts playable? Do you have enough of them in your deck? If that's the case you might play this, but it also means you're in limited. I can't see this in constructed, I don't expect the existing Deserts to be playable there. They are clearly just meant to be a limited mechanic in HOU. So we've ruled out constructed, but how many Deserts would you need to make this playable in limited? My first instinct was "too many", but then I looked again at the stats and I realized that even if you have no Deserts this is still a three-mana 3/3, which is already fine by itself in limited. Not great, but fine. So you could play this even with just a few Deserts, you get the three-mana 3/3 and if you're able to turn on afflict you can see it as a bonus. I also remember an article on the mothership where it was mentioned that they tried scaling effects like this for HOU, but then took them out because there were not enough Deserts for everyone in draft or something like that. No problems in casual and multiplayer.
Creativity
(2.5/3) Uniqueness - Afflict X is new, and gets you points here. Now, if it only actually worked as intended... (again see Quality).
(2/3) Flavor - The name is good. I have some small problems with the flavor text though (see both Elegance and Quality). I have nothing more to add here to what I've written in those other areas.
Polish
(0.5/3) Quality - As it is now, X is not defined and thus the ability does not work. You can't define X in reminder text, because reminder text has no rules effect. It's always treated like it doesn't exist for rules purposes, just like flavor text. For this card to work, it should have said: "Wretched Eternal has afflict X, where X is the number of Deserts you control. (Whenever this creature becomes blocked, defending player loses that much life.)" (-1 for functional mistake). In the flavor text, the attribution should be on its own line (-0.5) with no space after the dash (-0.5), that should be long by the way, here as in the type line. No deduction for that though as you may be subject to the infamous-by-now non-Latin character antispam restriction. Finally, it's Nicol Bolas, not "Nicole" (-0.5). The final "e" should not be there, also because Nicole is a female name (at least in Italian but I'm almost certain in English too, but then again in Italian Andrea is a strict male name...). If I remember correctly, Nicole Bolas with the "e" was a female character from Maro's Sparks series (maybe the name of Nicol Bolas's sister before she was named Penny?), and that is as fas from canon as it can get.
(2/2) Main Challenge - Good.
(2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
Total: 16.5/25
kjsharp: 22
Conntroll: 21.5
Sub_Silentio: 21.5
JamBlock: 20.5
Forestsguy: 17
SnowBlack1021: 16.5
TheRealStinkyJoeTerry: 16.5
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.)
Creature - Jackal Cleric {U}
Afflict 6 (Whenever this creature becomes blocked, defending player loses 6 life.)
Rejoice under the flames of the God-Pharaoh in the hour of devastation.
2/2
Design -
(1.5/3) Appeal: Less experienced Timmies think this reads "sometimes, this will deal 6 damage on an attack!", but the other half realize the implications of such a hefty penalty for blocking it (see Elegance). Johnny's head is spinning considering combos with lure effects, which is where my mind initially went. Spike absolutely cannot be bothered. He'll still play it in limited, but he won't be thrilled to open it in draft or anything (unless some Johnny deckbuilder has already demonstrated a viable combo).
(1/3) Elegance: I won't dock points twice for a mismatch in name & mechanical flavor (See Flavor), so all there is to say here is that the card will not do what it looks like it was designed to do. The way it will almost always play out in practice subverts expectations in a disappointing way. Consider your choices as the defending player. Unless you don't think you'll be able to remove this thing within the span of your next four turns after it's played, it never makes sense to block it. Just take the 6 damage in the form of combat damage over three turns instead of all at once (while risking losing a creature in the bargain).
Development -
(2.5/3) Viability: No rules are bent. The color wheel is respected, even though in practice, it's a red card with almost unblockable. I guess this is another possible take on conditional unblockability in red. Clunky, but it at least isn't a color bend.
(2.5/3) Balance: Initially on reading the card, my snap reaction was "Dang, this is good. Afflict 6 is sick." But as implied in Elegance, It's about on-par with Desert Drake, power-wise (which is fine). It might end up in my deck when I'm drafting red, but it's a toss-up. I would usually be less than thrilled (but not disappointed) at seeing it in the uncommon slot in a pack. Without a way to scare opponents into blocking it, it's a pretty French-vanilla-feeling card to be evaluating for any formats besides limited. I'll go with "not bleh, but certainly meh."
Creativity -
(1/3) Uniqueness: It's the biggest afflict value by 2 whole points, which is bold, if not unique. Given the unintended simplicity of how the card will play out, I feel the attempt at uniqueness by way of magnitude alone is a swing and a miss.
(1.5/3) Flavor: The name itself sounds excellent and lends itself well to the creature type. However, all the creatures with afflict so far are zombies. That's kind of the whole point, flavor-wise. In future sets that reuse afflict, I suppose there's room for non-zombies getting it, but if/when that happens, it won't be given to clerics named "Brightflame". The flavor here isn't compelling enough to warrant a departure from the precedent of "zombies only". Flavor text was absolutely necessary here to smooth out the clash between the name and mechanics. To that end, you did a good job tying together disparate imagery, but the text itself sounds puerile in contrast to the weightiness that was clearly intended.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: I see no issues.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: It's a creature with Afflict (+2)
(2/2) Subchallenges: Common (+1), Monored (+1)
Total: 17/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Creature - Zombie Beast (C)
Afflict 2 (Whenever this creature becomes blocked, defending player loses 2 life.)
Trample (This creature can deal excess combat damage to defending player or planeswalker while attacking.)
Gold is a token of honor, but not the final one.
4/4
Design -
(2.5/3) Appeal: Not to sound simplistic, but Timmy sees a big trampler with a spicy upside at common and salivates a little. Afflict used in a more straightforward way is a bit on-the-nose for Johnny, but giving it trample opens up some interesting possibilities. Spike sees value written all over this, and loves afflict to begin with. He'd prefer seeing this at a higher rarity, for the purpose of getting signals off of it in draft, but still. He would give this 3 points on his own if he could.
(3/3) Elegance: It's simple, in that it has two easy-to understand abilities, but there's an added layer of complexity, thanks to the interaction between trample and afflict. Very nice.
Development -
(2/3) Viability: Very red, no issues here. No rules are broken, and it at least has precedence for being common. It's about 1/2 a colored mana more expensive than a similar common, Cinder Hellion, and just a touch more powerful, I'd say. However, I think this P/T combined with such relentlessly oppressive rules text is maybe a bit strong at common, regardless of mana cost. I would have liked it to be balanced a bit differently, and made an uncommon, or even rare.
(1.5/3) Balance: Every red deck in limited will play this, and in sealed, it will push a lot of players to go red (or just make ill-advised splashes) for it. So even though it's probably balanced in a vacuum, I could see it having an undesirable warping effect on the limited environment. As it is now, balanced as a common, I don't see it having an impact on constructed play at all.
Creativity -
(3/3) Uniqueness: Nothing quite like this has been done, though that's going to be the case with all of these cards. The real triumph here is using a new mechanic to make an old mechanic feel fresh. Balance issues aside, trample and afflict is a match made in heaven.
(3/3) Flavor: Yeah! Eternalize that cerodon! Every element of the card syncs together flavorfully. Excellent job keeping the design focused around plane-relevant, accessible flavor. The flavor text is the cherry on top, with the reference to the original cerodon being gilded. It might be a bit oblique for someone who doesn't pay close attention to art or flavor in general (or someone just coming to the game), but I fully expect the art would be able to clear up any confusion. This card is a flavor slam dunk.
Polish -
(2.5/3) Quality: In a non-core set, reminder text for evergreen abilities isn't necessary (-.5)
(2/2) *Main Challenge:It's a creature with afflict (+2)
(2/2) Subchallenges: Common (+1), Monored (+1)
Total: 21.5/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Legendary Creature - Human Wizard (M)
Afflict 5 (Whenever this creature becomes blocked, defending player loses 5 life.)
Alzelal, the Wounded can't block.
"There are rare cases where we break formation in an assault. This is one of them."
- Rayel, Defensive Coordinator
3/1
Design -
(2/3) Appeal: It's a powerful, exciting card. Timmy's all about that life. Breaking this more than it already is would be difficult. It's a bit too obvious for Johnny's taste. Spike just audibly moaned. He can't wait to cast this thing on every first turn forever until it gets banned.
(2/3) Elegance: I personally found the contrast between tiny mana cost and MOAB-grade power to be quite jarring. It took a couple of reads to make sure I hadn't misinterpreted it. Nothing is complicated to understand at all on its own, though.
Development -
(2.5/3) Viability: It definitely feels very red. Even maybe TOO red, even for a red card It could be nothing other than mythic rare, so yeah, that much is right. Now... "Does it break or bend the rules of the game?" Not TECHNICALLY, but there has never been a 3/n one-drop printed with no tangible drawback (Yes, I realize it can't block), and this even has a sizable upside. Normally, this kind of thing would be covered in the Balance score (which it will be), but I feel it's such a departure from Magic design principles, that it enters into "breaking the rules" territory. I'm only subtracting half-a-point for it here, though.
(0/3) Balance: I believe I explained my scoring decision well enough in Viability. Even a 1-mana 3/1 that can't block would be utterly unprintable, let alone one that deincentivizes it BEING blocked! This would destroy any format it was legal in. I'm no vintage expert, but I'm sure it would see play as far up as that.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: "Has a card like this ever been printed before?" Hahaha, yes and no. balance issues aside, this is, at its core, a cheap, aggressive creature that opponents won't want to block. Not an uncommon design concept, though the "can't block" ability has never been printed alongside the kind of block trigger present with afflict. Besides that, the steep afflict value does make it feel a bit more fresh than the usual fare. (Fun fact: Only two rare cards with CMC3 or less and "Whenever ~ becomes blocked..." have been printed, and they're both... blue?)
(1.5/3) Flavor: All the creatures with afflict so far are zombies. That's kind of the whole point, flavor-wise. I understand the intended flavor here: wounded soldier becomes more dangerous when he's fighting for his life. So he's all-in on the all-out attack plan, heedless of tactics, or even his original objectives. He must kill or be killed. So why is he a wizard instead of a soldier, or warrior, or berserker? Is it because you were looking for a way for the affliction to make sense flavor-wise? Well, that's why he needed to be a zombie. I like everything else here, and the flavor text complements the rest of the card nicely. But the creature type is a flavor fail, considering how swingy he is, and the zombies-only aspect of afflict should have been respected, regardless. On a less important note, I think his name should be "Alzelal, Wounded [whatever he is]". As you have it formatted, Wounded sounds a bit like his official title. No points deducted here; it's just a minor qualm.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: I see no issues. Wizards has been inconsistent with implementation of the comma between proper names and titles, so the format of the card's name is fine (even though it wants a comma to my eye).
(2/2) *Main Challenge:It's a creature with afflict (+2)
(1/2) Subchallenges: Mythic Rare (+0), Monored (+1)
Total: 16/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Creature – Naga Druid (U)
When Nitin Caretaker dies, you may search your library for a basic land card, put it onto the battlefield tapped, then shuffle your library.
Eternalize - Sacrifice three lands (Sacrifice three lands, exile this card from your graveyard: Create a token that's a copy of it, except it's a 4/4 black Zombie Naga Druid with no mana cost. Eternalize only as a sorcery.)
Don't we turn over clumps of dirt in order to get a rich crop? We cultivated a little garden, but the God Pharaoh grows a paradise for us to inhabit!
0/2
Design -
(2/3) Appeal: Timmy says meh. Payoff takes too much effort for him, and the eternalize cost looks steeep. Johnny knows that Ramunap Excavator and Crucible of Worlds exist, and there are all manner of ways to benefit from "paying" a cost of discarding a card, so he's all-in. Spike doesn't like the initial slowness, but sees potential in a "free" 4/4 if he can get this in the graveyard without much fuss. I'm giving full Spike points, but it's more like 0.75, I think.
(1.5/3) Elegance: Nothing is too weird complicated, but the stark difference in strategies of the two abilities make me go "huh?". I get that his first ability helps pay his eternalize cost, but it only gets you 1/3 of the way there. Then once it's changed its tactics and razed three of your lands, it goes back to being a good little cultivator once it dies again. Just kind of disjointed, mechanically. Also, would have loved to see some mention of deserts because of how well this works with Hostile Desert and Dunes of the Dead. Bit of a missed opportunity for a tie-in between the stated mechanics and the ways the card will actually be used. Still, though. Nice set-aware interactions, if they were intentional
Development -
(1/3) Viability: The death trigger is perfectly green, but seems kind of lackluster for uncommon rarity, especially on a wimpy 0/2. The eternalize ability is much more uncommon-appropriate, but sacrificing multiple lands for a non-land-ramp payoff is NOT green. At all. There have been exactly two monogreen cards printed with activated abilities or alternate costs that call for multiple land sacrifices, and both of them immediately replace all of the sacced lands. If the card were (R/G) or (B/G), it would make sense, but definitely not monogreen.
(3/3) Balance: I see plenty of opportunities for use across formats. Definitely in limited, where the second ability could be all but ignored without much concern (but when actually used intelligently would sometimes just wreck shop. Free late-game 4/4s sounds spicy as hell). Fitting this into constructed decks would require find ways to yard this without the rigamarole of waiting for it to die in combat. Perhaps in a control deck that could use it for early game chumping, then force incidental value out of it later with a board wipe. Thinking about it this way makes me feel less weird about giving the full point for Spike earlier. Even without the second ability, there are multiple ways to twist this dude into a better Rampant Growth.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: Pre-eternalize, it's just a weaker Primal Druid, which is a pretty recent card to be carbon-copying. However, the eternalize ability is definitely a novel approach. Even though this isn't the card for it, I do greatly like the idea of this particular alternate cost for eternalize.
(1.5/3) Flavor: I covered this in Elegance already, but the flavor of the card suffers as well due to the mismatch between the two abilities. One gives you land when the thing dies, then you can undo all his work and then some to bring him back as a beefcake that... gives you another land when he dies? It would be exceedingly tricky to fluff this delicately enough to make it cohesive in the slightest. You're on the right track, having the character himself kind of acknowledge the internal flavor contradiction, but I still don't understand exactly what he's getting at in the flavor text. I will say that I adore how it's formatted in such a parable-esque way. You're getting a full point for the fantastic execution of flavor text, even if it doesn't get all the way there for me.
Polish -
(
23/3) Quality:First ability should read: "When Nitin Caretaker dies, you may search your library for a basic land card. If you do, put it onto the battlefield tapped, then shuffle your library." (Taking a full point because this alters the function of the card, albeit subtly). (As it turns out, there is in fact plenty of precedence for this wording, as Exodus87 pointed out privately. It should have been made obvious to me during my card search, especially since the card I linked above features the exact same wording. I still think it sounds very wrong to have so much happen off of a single invocation of "you may [action]", but if it's good enough for Oracle, it's good enough for the MCC. Point restored.) The italics of the eternalize reminder text begins after the parentheses are opened. No points deducted for such a minor formatting oopsie, but do be careful.(2/2) *Main Challenge:It's a creature with eternalize (+2)
(1/2) Subchallenges: Uncommon (+1), Monogreen (+0)
Total: 17/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Creature - Zombie Naga Cleric [Uncommon]
Afflict 2 (Whenever this creature becomes blocked, defending player loses 2 life.)
2B: Create a 1/1 black Snake creature token with deathtouch. Activate this ability only if Eternal of Fangs dealt combat damage to a player this turn.
1/4
Design -
(2.5/3) Appeal: As a self-identified JOHNNY/timmy, I'm all about this card, personally. My T is like, "I'm gonna make a snake EVERY TURN", and my Johnny is like, "All I need is some respectable ramp, and I can pump out multiple snakes EVERY TURN!. Spike loves forcing situations with no good options for his opponents generally, but doesn't like putting too much of his strategy on the table like this.
(3/3) Elegance: There's that same pleasing layer of complexity as with Raptorchan's own afflicting eternal, but I'd say this one goes a little bit deeper for an even more exciting "aha!" moment. All of the mechanical elements play well together, such that the card is more than the sum of its parts, and yet not over-designed or too complicated.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: Totally viable. It could almost be printed as-is, but the one issue I see is more a balance concern. Uncommon is correct, but then I thought Frontline Devastator should have been uncommon. Maybe my rare-ometer is miscalibrated for afflict? (Having played with and against the Devastator several times at the prerelease, I don't think it is).
(2.5/3) Balance: As noted in Johnny's impression of the card, the way it's worded, you can create as many snakes as you can afford so long as the requirement is met. I'm of the opinion that this is too potentially exploitable. It should be a single-use death trigger, I think. Still, that wouldn't come up too often, and really only in Johnny-tastic constructed decks built around it. It might never be an issue in actual fact, so I'm only taking half a point. I see no balance problems besides this, and can see it not only being prized in limited (duh), but also potentially standard-playable. As-written, any Pharika and/or Hapatra player wants this, too.
Creativity -
(2.5/3) Uniqueness: So aside from their second abilities, this is exactly a less-good, black Wildfire Eternal, another humanoid eternal. They also both have "rock-and-a-hard-place" abilities focused on their affliction. It IS a unique take on a way to incentivize blocking an afflict creature, though. I can't give full points, but I do appreciate the creativity in the card's design. It's just an existing card shell, which would be no big deal if afflict wasn't so new an ability, and there weren't so few cards with that ability to get inspiration from.
(3/3) Flavor: Full marks. Everything works together seamlessly. You even followed the template for naming eternals of intelligent races (rather than just "Naga Eternal") I would have loved to see some flavor text; there is room fr it. But not because it's needed in order to make sense of the card's flavor. Not every card needs flavor text.
Actually, here is a PSA for all MTG designers, amateur and pro alike:
NOT ALL CARDS NEED FLAVOR TEXT. NO FLAVOR TEXT IS FAR BETTER THAN DUMB FLAVOR TEXT.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: I see no issues.
(2/2) *Main Challenge:It's a creature with eternalize (+2)
(2/2) Subchallenges: Uncommon (+1), Monoblack (+1)
Total: 23.5/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Creature — Human Wizard [U]
Whenever a creature you control with power 4 or greater attacks, it gains flying until end of turn.
Eternalize 5UU (5UU, Exile this card from your graveyard: Create a token that's a copy of it, except it's a 4/4 black Zombie Human Wizard with no mana cost. Eternalize only as a sorcery.)
"The skies deserve to be ruled by the worthy."
2/2
Design -
(3/3) Appeal: Timmy might initially be disappointed that it doesn't give itself flying unless you can eternalize it, but I think he'll quickly come all the way around on this. He already loves chucking big dudes at faces, and this makes all of his big dudes better big dudes. Johnny, while less excited about the prospect of flying rhinos, sees a lot of room for supplementing this card's triggered ability with an otherwise mediocre teamwide pump effect for the sick synergy. Spike likes having ways to squeeze value out of his plays without having to wait to untap with them, and the fact that its eternalize ability nets you more than just a 4/4 version of the card (It now triggers itself when it attacks) means there aren't many games he won't be able to get SOME value out of this, even if things go horribly wrong.
(3/3) Elegance: Another very, very elegant and interesting implementation of the keywords in the challenge. It becomes a slightly different (better) card as a 4/4, making the eternalize ability more than just a consolation prize or removal deterrent. All the moving parts mesh together snugly.
Development -
(1/3) Viability: Aite, so... Blue cards in Khans of Tarkir got away with caring about creatures with large power because of a dumb set mechanic (Ferocious) that I feel egregiously bent blue to the breaking point. This card doesn't even benefit from its set having a Beefcake-Matters theme, and so blue is the exact wrong color to be featuring it. The bit about granting flying to a whole class of creatures? Perfectly acceptable, just not this class of creatures. It could have been balanced different to allow zombies to get flying, rather than bigdudes. That would have worked, and would have jibed even better with the rest of the card's flavor Also, this is a rare in uncommon's clothing. You'd have been just as well-off balancing it as a rare and sacrificing one bonus point.
(1/3) Balance: Whether this card is totally broken or not will depend on how many on-curve or better 4-power creatures (especially with haste) share the limited/standard formats with it. Right now, we have Ovalchase Dragster, Fleetwheel Cruiser, Heart of Kiran, Lathnu Hellion, Bloodmad Vampire/Stromkirk Mentor, and more, all of which just about bust this card wide open. Even in Hour od Devastation itself, we have Ammit Eternal which would be disgusting paired with this. There are way more synergistic options in the current standard alone than I thought I'd find. In eternal formats, it's both more and less busted — far more options for 4-power flying beatsicks, but also more available ways to deal with this card. I see it being banned in standard, and having a bunch of spicy brews featuring it trying to break into the modern scene. Suffice it to say, I do not think this card is balanced, but not egregiously so.
Creativity -
(3/3) Uniqueness: OK, now back to the good stuff. The card is wildly creative, as implied earlier. Balance aside, I definitely want to see some version of this card printed. It's powerful, but in uncommon and often unexpected ways. Full marks here from me.
(2.5/3) Flavor: Not much to say, except "Nice work." The name fits the abilities. The creature type is appropriate. The flavor text is spot-on. Understanding "the worthy" to mean Nicky B's eternals, it aptly references the 4-power clause of its first ability. Very nice, though as mentioned, balancing it to care about attacking zombies instead of meat-heads would have tied the flavor together even better.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: I see no issues. Initially, I thought the quote in the flavor text needed an attribution, but one of my favorite flavor texts of all time cleared that right up for me.
(2/2) *Main Challenge:It's a creature with eternalize
(2/2) Subchallenges: Uncommon (+1), Monoblue (+1)
Total: 20.5/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Creature — Crocodile (C)
Bloated Crocodile can't attack unless you control a Zombie.
Eternalize 3UU (3UU, Exile this card from your graveyard: Create a token that's a copy of it, except it's 4/4 black Zombie Crocodile with no mana cost.)
5/5
Design -
(1/3) Appeal: Timmy isn't exactly ecstatic about a 5/5 for 6, even if it fits into his cheeky zombie tribal strategy. But he'll gladly pick this in draft if he can get his zombie train going. There's not much for Johnny to work with here, and Spike sees at best a 5/5 for 5 if he can pitch it, which isn't terrible for a blue creature. He's not even considering playing for its mana cost, though, even in limited.
(3/3) Elegance: Everything is executed elegantly, and you managed to find a drawback that has neat synergy with afflict.
Development -
(2/3) Viability: It's very blue, in that it's an above-curve fatty with a downside, and common is the correct rarity here. Now, I don't understand why this is less expensive to eternalize than to cast from your hand. Like a lot of eternalizers, this gets better because it's a 4/4 zombie (apart from it just being bigger), and this should definitely be reflected in its eternalize cost. It could have easily been a 5/5 for 4U with eternalize 4UU.
(1/3) Balance: Being honest, this is straight-up limited filler. It won't see any constructed play, and won't even show up in most blue limited decks. I guess every set has to have a few cards like this, but I wouldn't expect to see them in a design contest.
Creativity -
(2.5/3) 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”?
(1/3) Flavor: There was plenty of room for some flavor text, and it would have been welcome here. I'm unsure exactly why the crocodile is bloated, and what that has to do with zombies? Is he bloated like corpses bloat? Or because he ate a bunch of zombies, and if so, why would he only be able to attack when dessert is hanging around? A creature with eternalize is supposed to be special in some way, unlike embalm, which was the opposite. Even the cat is adorned. The crocodile isn't special; he's just bloated. As mentioned, though, I do like the interplay between his first and second abilities. Getting better when he's a zombie is good mechanical flavor.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: I see no issues.
(2/2) *Main Challenge:It's a creature with eternalize
(2/2) Subchallenges: Common (+1), Monoblue (+1)
Total: 17.5/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Tesco(black)lotus 23.5/25
Raptorchan 21.5/25
admirableadmiral 20.5/25
willows 17.5/25
Exodus87 17/25
Freyeles 17/25
glurman 16/25