(This banner is my own elaboration on the art of the card Hour of Promise by Jonas De Ro.)
July MCC Round 3
"Sandstorm"
This month we're going to focus on the mechanics and flavor of HOU. With two insect gods taken care of, we only have another one to focus on this round before taking on the God-Pharaoh himself. Now, what happens when the barrier that protects your city from the harsh desert gets eaten away by locusts? Take shelter where you can, because the sand is going to storm inside!
Main challenge: Design a card that explicitly interacts with the specific Desert land type in any way. Please read clarifications.The desert is making the city part of itself.
Subchallenge 1: The card is not a land itself.Not even the trial gods' monuments are going to stand.
Subchallenge 2: The card's color identity does not contain green.All this can't be natural. A dark force must have twisted the world.
Main Challenge
Any interaction with Deserts counts, not just the "if you control a Desert or there is one in the graveyard" that we see in HOU. Of course, that does count too though.
What matters is that the interaction must specifically be with the Desert land type. The Desert subtype must be specifically and explicitly mentioned. Interacting with any land does NOT meet this challenge. For example, "destroy target land" is NOT good, while "destroy target Desert" is. Interacting with any land but with an additional bonus if that land is a Desert is also fine. For example, "destroy target land. If it was a Desert, its controller loses 2 life" is good.
Your card can do anything else in addition to the Desert interaction.
Subchallenge 1
Should be self-explanatory. Your card does not have the land card type.
Subchallenge 2
Remember that color identity includes all colored mana symbols of any kind not just in the mana cost but also in the rules text. This means you can't have any green mana symbols anywhere on the card, including hybrid mana symbols containing green or green Phyrexian mana.
Feel free to ask any additional questions you might have in the discussion thread.
A friendly reminder I left everyone a few months ago but it's still valid:
A reminder to everyone: In the MCC, putting rarity on cards is mandatory! If you don't put a rarity on your card, expect huge deductions in both Viability AND Quality.
Also, you should format your text cards accordingly to the forum rules (see the "this formatting looks best" spoiler in the linked OP). Again, expect deductions in Quality otherwise.
Design - (X/3) Appeal: Do the different player psychographics (Timmy/Johhny/Spike) have a use for the card? (X/3) Elegance: Is the card easily understandable at a glance? Do all the flavor and mechanics combined as a whole make sense?
Development - (X/3) Viability: How well does the card fit into the color wheel? Does it break or bend the rules of the game? Is it the appropriate rarity? (X/3) Balance: Does the card have a power level appropriate for contemporary constructed/limited environments without breaking them? Does it play well in casual and multiplayer formats? Does it create or fit into a deck/archetype? Does it create an oppressive environment?
Creativity - (X/3) Uniqueness: Has a card like this ever been printed before? Does it use new mechanics, ideas, or design space? Does it combine old ideas in a new way? Overall, does it feel “fresh”? (X/3) Flavor: Does the name seem realistic for a card? Does the flavor text sound professional? Do all the flavor elements synch together to please Vorthos players?
Polish - (X/3) Quality: Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating. (X/2) *Main Challenge: Was the main challenge satisfied? Was it approached in a unique or interesting way? Does the card fit the intent of the challenge? (X/2) Subchallenges: One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Total: X/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
DEADLINES
Design deadline: Saturday, July 22nd 2017 23:59 EDT
Judging deadline: Wednesday, July 26th 2017 23:59 EDT
JUDGES
bravelion83
StonerOfKruphix
Rocco
Blydden
PLAYERS
admirableadmiral
doomfish
iphanx
Jimmy Groove Necarg(didn't post a card within the design deadline)
Raptorchan
The_Hittite
willows
Only the above players are allowed to submit a card. To everyone else, better luck next month!
This is the versus round, so players will be paired in four two-player matchups each judged by two judges. The player who gets the highest combined score from the two judges advances to the final round.
BRACKETS
Judges: bravelion83 and StonerOfKruphix Three-player group:
admirableadmiral, doomfish, The_Hittite The top 2 combined scores from this group will advance to the final round. The lowest combined score will be eliminated.
Judges: Rocco and Blydden Classic matchups (best combined score advance, lowest combined score is eliminated):
Raptorchan vs. willows
iphanx vs. Jimmy Groove
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.)
Amonkhet's Ruin2RR
Enchantment [R]
At the beginning of your upkeep, discard a card, then draw a card.
At the beginning of your end step, if there are ten or more Desert cards in your graveyard, you win the game. "My only regret is that I could destroy this plane but once."
—Nicol Bolas
Remember Your Name2UU
Sorcery (R)
Draw two cards, then you may discard a Desert card. If you do, you may search your library for a Jace planeswalker, reveal it to all players, and put it into your hand. Shuffle your library. Freed from the painful thoughts of others by the isolation of the dunes, Jace Beleren wandered in search of his identity and his purpose.
Simoom Invoker2W
Creature - Human Wizard (U)
Vigilance
Deserts you control have "t: This land deals 1 damage to target attacking creature. Activate this ability only during the end of combat step". It wasn't long until Naktamun survivors had developed a use for deadly desert winds.
2/3
Forgotten Monument3
Artifact [R] 2, T: Target player puts the top X cards of his or her library into his or her graveyard, where X is the number of Deserts you control plus the number of Desert cards in your graveyard. With time, the desert sands can grind even the mightiest empire into dust.
Banished into the WastesW
Instant (U)
Shuffle target creature with toughness less than or equal to the number of Desert you control. It doesn’t always take a wall to make a labyrinth.
Fata Morgana2U
Creature - Illusion (U)
Whenever ~ becomes the target of a spell or ability, sacrifice it, unless you sacrifice a Desert. "You'd think the dangers here that are real would be enough!"
-Ahntep, survivor from Naktamun
4/4
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Multiple instances of lifelink on the same creature are redundant.
Multiple instances of lifelink on the same creature are redundant.
Multiple instances of lifelink on the same creature are redundant.
—Eli Shiffrin, Rules Manager, on a design stacking lifelink instances
Buried Beneath the Sands3B
Sorcery (U)
Destroy target creature. Its controller loses X life and you gain X life, where X is equal to the number of Deserts you control.
The round is officially closed. My worst dreams have come true, as despite my private reminder (which this time I have thought about), we still have a no show: Necarg. How to do a versus round with seven players? I came up with a solution that's not ideal but I think it's the best I can do. Two classic matchups in which the winner advances. One group of three players in which the top 2 players advance and only the last is eliminated. The chance of advancing is not equal in the three groups of players (and this is why it's not ideal), but Excel's random generator will take care of that so that there are no favorites in seeding. A couple of judges dedicates to judging the three-player group and the other two judges judge the two classic matchups. In this way, the first two judges have three cards to judge and the other two four, which is the most equal way of distributing 14 judgments to do. We really need to find a solution to this long-standing problem, but in the meantime this is how I will have things proceed in this round.
BRACKETS
Judges: bravelion83 and StonerOfKruphix Three-player group:
admirableadmiral, doomfish, The_Hittite The top 2 combined scores from this group will advance to the final round. The lowest combined score will be eliminated.
Judges: Rocco and Blydden Classic matchups (best combined score advance, lowest combined score is eliminated):
Raptorchan vs. willows
iphanx vs. Jimmy Groove
I'm sorry but with an odd number of players this is the best I can do in the versus round. Now let's get to judging.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.)
Simoom Invoker2W
Creature - Human Wizard (U)
Vigilance
Deserts you control have "t: This land deals 1 damage to target attacking creature. Activate this ability only during the end of combat step". It wasn't long until Naktamun survivors had developed a use for deadly desert winds.
2/3
Design - (1.5/3) Appeal: Tammy is disinterested in this card.
Jenny likes this card as a puzzle piece to her 'deserts matter' deck, but it is too reactive to always be useful.
Spike is appealed to this card. The creature is useful by itself without any deserts, and the card overall ends up pulling more than its fair share of weight with deserts. (2/3) Elegance: The "end of combat step" clause has not been used, since, well, Desert. The resulting lack of familiarity with this card's timing (which affects multiple cards on the battlefield during combat) is enough to constitute a major inelegance.
Development - (2/3) Viability: This card is definitely White (and I cannot picture what other color this card could even be in). However, this should surely be a Rare and not an Uncommon due to it affecting multiple (if specific) cards in very important ways. (1.5/3) Balance: Without any deserts, this card is still fairly playable. With deserts, this card becomes rather oppressive, partly because it also has vigilance. Otherwise, my fellow judge, Rocco, provided a better explanation regarding this card than I could succinctly provide.
Creativity - (1.5/3) Uniqueness: This is a modernized attempt at the card Desert. I cannot give more than half credit for such a spirited attempt, as spirited as it may be. (1.5/3) Flavor: The mechanics of this card are quite flavorful; the flavor text of this card is alright. However, the name "Invoker" has a certain pattern related to it by cards such as Frostwind Invoker and Valakut Invoker. Since this card does not repeat the pattern set by the twelve official invokers before it, this card's name is a detriment rather than a boon.
Polish - (3/3) Quality: Perfect! (2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge met! (2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges met!
Total: 17/25
Final thoughts: Hey, I heard that you liked the card Desert, so I made all of your deserts into deserts. Badum-tish!
In all seriousness, this card did not fix the issues that the original Desert had. The aforementioned card was simply too oppressive to play against, and (in my honest opinion) this card does not tone down that problem enough to turn out well.
Buried Beneath the Sands3B
Sorcery (U)
Destroy target creature. Its controller loses X life and you gain X life, where X is equal to the number of Deserts you control.
Design - (2.5/3) Appeal: Timmy is appealed to by most X cards, and this is no exception.
Johnny would like to use this in a deserts deck, but the upside is too small to serve as anything more than a stepping stone but not a win condition on its own.
Spike is definitely appealed to by this card; it is efficient, splashable creature removal with upsides. (3/3) Elegance: Marvelously elegant!
Development - (3/3) Viability: This card is not only very Black, but it is also an excellent Uncommon. No viability concerns here. (2.5/3) Balance: I have to heavily disagree with my fellow judge, Rocco, regarding this card's balance. The "going rate" for Uncommon Black unconditional creature removal at instant speed is 3 (using Murder as precedent). This card is a 4 mana sorcery, which allows it room for a moderate upside.
Obviously, with no deserts, this card is below par, so one does have to draft deserts alongside it for the sake of efficiency and to benefit from the upside. As a result, this card is smartly pushed in an environment with as many deserts in it as the Amonkhet block does. I do think that this card at 2BB would have earned a perfect balance score (due to the loss of splashability), but as-is it is definitely more appealing.
Creativity - (1/3) Uniqueness: The desert clause is all that is unique about this card. (2/3) Flavor: Great name, great mechanical flavor, but there was plenty of room for flavor text. The flavor text could have helped a lot to better explain the 'drain' as a result of the number of deserts that you control.
Polish - (2.5/3) Quality: The phrase "equal to" is nothing more than unnecessary rules text and should be nixed (minus half a point). (2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge met! (2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges met!
Total: 20.5/25
Final thoughts: This is a very eloquent way to complete this challenge. Bravo, as bravelion83 might say!
Banished into the WastesW
Instant (U)
Shuffle target creature with toughness less than or equal to the number of Desert you control. It doesn’t always take a wall to make a labyrinth.
Design - (1/3) Appeal: Tammy is bored by this card until it can remove almost any creature.
Jenny does like this card, as definitely it is worth using in a deck that cares about deserts.
Spike both likes and dislikes this card, as it is completely useless without deserts (and can also be countered by combat tricks that increase toughness), but it also rewards smart deckbuilding and skillful play. (2.5/3) Elegance: Something as strange as requiring your opponent to shuffle a card from the battlefield into their library constitutes a minor inelegance.
Development - (1/3) Viability: This card is absolutely not in color for White at all. Perhaps this card could be in Black instead, thanks to the precedents of Defeat and Reave Soul?
This card is also too variable in power level to safely be an Uncommon; it should definitely be a Rare instead. (1/3) Balance: First off, this card is completely useless without deserts. It needs, not one, but two deserts to be worthwhile; three or more deserts under your control causes it to become quite good, if not becomes completely out of bounds in terms of power level.
I do wish that this card was a less volatile and 'all or nothing'. Having a dead card in your hand resulting from something that I would have to call 'desert screw' is just kind of awful. Having to play against undercosted removal is also kind of miserable. The happy medium here for this card is, admittedly, rather elusive.
Creativity - (3/3) Uniqueness: I myself cannot find any other precedent for this card's existence other than Rishadan Pawnshop, a card older than the year 2000. Congratulations. (1.5/3) Flavor: The name of this card is alright (see Quality); the flavor text of this card is alright. Rocco gave better suggestions for fixing up this card's flavor text than I can.
There is one personal quibble that I have regarding this card's overall flavor. Why does it not exile instead if the word "Banish" is literally in this card's name?
Polish - (1/3) Quality: Firstly, the name of this card should be 'Banished to the Wastes' for the sake of grammatical correctness (minus half a point).
Secondly, this card's line of rules text has multiple mistakes. I would write it as follows: 'Shuffle target creature with toughness less than or equal to the number of Deserts you control into its owner's library.' (minus one and a half points) (2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge met! (2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges met!
Total: 15/25
Final thoughts: Design-wise, this card should never have scaled off of the number of Deserts you control. If this card was a little bit more like Fatal Push (except improving based upon controlling a Desert or having a Desert in your graveyard instead of having Revolt active), it definitely would have fared better.
Remember Your Name2UU
Sorcery (R)
Draw two cards, then you may discard a Desert card. If you do, you may search your library for a Jace planeswalker, reveal it to all players, and put it into your hand. Shuffle your library. Freed from the painful thoughts of others by the isolation of the dunes, Jace Beleren wandered in search of his identity and his purpose.
Design - (1/3) Appeal: Simply put, Timmy likes planeswalkers, and this card involves planeswalkers.
Johnny dislikes this card, for it does not allow for creative deckbuilding at all. The deserts plus Jace pair of restrictions on this card causes the resulting deck to be far too obvious to be at all interesting.
Spike would play this card if the relevant deck was in the metagame. Otherwise, she would simply not play it. (3/3) Elegance: Elegant, but see Quality.
Development - (3/3) Viability: This card is Blue through and through (Jace Beleren is Blue too). This card definitely needed to be Rare, and thankfully it is indeed Rare. (2/3) Balance: This card basically requires both deserts and a Jace planeswalker to be worth playing (so it is basically dead in Limited).
I am actually inclined to think that this card is overcosted. The specificity that this card asks for results in an entire deck needing to be built with it in mind. I cannot picture that deck ever being even remotely playable in even a semi-competitive environment.
Creativity - (2.5/3) Uniqueness: The most unique component of this card is not the planeswalker tutoring (thanks to planeswalker decks), but the specific requirement of discarding a Desert. (1/3) Flavor: I dislike the name (the name really should explicitly mention Jace somehow); the flavor text is alright. If Jace was a planeswalker that was mechanically connected to Deserts, this card would fare a lot better with relating its flavor with its mechanics, but it does a fine job regardless.
Polish - (0/3) Quality: There are two extraneous spaces in this card's rules text (minus half a point each).
The second sentence of the second line of rules text possess multiple errors. The word 'card' should come after the word "planeswalker" (minus half a point), the phrase "to all players" is redundant and should be nixed (minus half a point), the word "and" is redundant and should be nixed (minus half a point), and the third sentence should be incorporated into the second sentence with the word 'then' after a comma (minus half a point). So, this card's rules text would read as follows:
'Draw two cards, then you may discard a Desert card. If you do, you may search your library for a Jace planeswalker card, reveal it, put it into your hand, then shuffle your library.' (2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge met! (2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges met!
Total: 16.5/25
Final thought: At least this card is the kind of card that sort of makes sense in a planeswalker deck.
Truth be told, this is the sort of card that is more reliant on card art than anything else in order to pull off its intended flavor.
Yes, in this bracket too. My scores are all close and quite high this round. I think we saw some amazing designs this round.
Judgments complete, not final until deadline.
Amonkhet's Ruin2RR
Enchantment [R]
At the beginning of your upkeep, discard a card, then draw a card.
At the beginning of your end step, if there are ten or more Desert cards in your graveyard, you win the game. "My only regret is that I could destroy this plane but once."
—Nicol Bolas
Design (2.5/3) Appeal - Timmy likes alternate win conditions, even though he probably likes one that care about the battlefield better. Johnny also likes them, as each of them is a unique puzzle to solve. Spike likes them too if they're actually efficiently achievable. I don't know if this could qualify, but even if it doesn't, rummaging by itself is something Spike can get behind too. He prefers looting, but he still gets to dig into his deck. (3/3) Elegance - I see no problems here. The symmetry between an upkeep trigger and an end step trigger is very nice, as is the fact that the effect of the former feeds into that of the latter.
Development (2.5/3) Viability - Rummaging is red. The alternate win condition does feel red, as it cares about lands in graveyards, which usually get there via land destruction, which is red. Now, in this case you'll probably get Deserts into your graveyard by cycling or sacrificing them instead, but that doesn't change the feel of that ability. This card honestly just feels mythic to me, even though alternate win conditions have been at regular rare before, even in post-mythic era sets. (2.5/3) Balance - The mana cost looks realistic enough to me. Ten is also a high enough threshold that should avoid any potential problems. I like how you can discard Deserts to the first ability to get closer to the win condition, it's kind of an in-card combo. As for playability, this is just not a limited card, it would be very hard to have 10+ Deserts in your limited deck, but at least rummaging still gives it a use there. In constructed, this makes interesting new decks come up by itself, even if I don't think these Desert decks would be competitive. I think they could totally have their place in casual, with some fringe Standard play if they prove strong enough, kind of like Maze's End. That's not a bad place to be for a card like this.
Creativity (2.5/3) Uniqueness - A Desert-related alternate win condition has to score high here, even if the first ability is just rummaging. (3/3) Flavor - Name, flavor text and card concept are all very good both by themselves and in combination.
Polish (3/3) Quality - All good. (2/2) Main Challenge - Good. (2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
Total: 23/25
Fata Morgana2U
Creature - Illusion (U)
Whenever ~ becomes the target of a spell or ability, sacrifice it, unless you sacrifice a Desert. "You'd think the dangers here that are real would be enough!"
-Ahntep, survivor from Naktamun
4/4
Design (2.5/3) Appeal - Timmy likes a big creature but doesn't like to sacrifice it. Johnny might do something like using an effect of his own to target this then choose to sacrifice a Desert and trigger something out of that. Spike likes an undercosted creature and doesn't mind the drawback. (3/3) Elegance - No problems here. Short, clean and very easy to understand.
Development (3/3) Viability - The Illusion ability is blue and I think rarity is right. Phantasmal Dragon (another undercosted card with the Illusion drawback) feels very close to this and it's uncommon, so I guess this can be too without any problem. (2/3) Balance - This is definitely limited playable, and I think it would be even without the Desert clause. Still, I can't really see this in any form of competitive constructed. I see no problems in casual or multiplayer.
Creativity (1.5/3) Uniqueness - This is just a twist on the classic Illusion ability. Good and it fits the block it's supposed to come from, but still nothing more than that. (3/3) Flavor - The name is very good, and I didn't know it was used in English too. Here in Italy it's also a well known expression because of a famous song, but I've honestly never used it nor seen it being used in English before. Here it just fits wonderfully with the mechanics and the flavor text, and they all fit together very well with one another too.
Polish (1.5/3) Quality - The use of ~ as a placeholder for the name of the card is not approved in the MCC: You should write it out like it would be in the real card (well known fact, -1). No comma should be there before "unless" (-0.5). (2/2) Main Challenge - Good. (2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
Total: 20.5/25
Forgotten Monument3
Artifact [R] 2, T: Target player puts the top X cards of his or her library into his or her graveyard, where X is the number of Deserts you control plus the number of Desert cards in your graveyard. With time, the desert sands can grind even the mightiest empire into dust.
Design (2/3) Appeal - Timmy likes milling. Johnny has the challenge to maximize this. I don't think Spike would be interested. (3/3) Elegance - No problems here. Not too long and very easy to understand.
Development (2.5/3) Viability - I'm a bit concerned about allowing every color access to milling, which is supposed to be primary blue and secondary black, but artifacts have already played in that design space before. This is the kind of card that probably needs to be rare because of its gameplay even though it doesn't read rare to me, but it might just be me. (2/3) Balance - I don't think I'd play this card in limited, unless milling is an archetype there, and I can't remember that having ever happened. EDIT: It was pointed out to me that Grindclock was played in limited and that milling 40 cards is way easier than milling 60. While I've never personally played with Grindclock in limited, the second point is just true. In constructed this gets better, as you can build a whole Desert + Mill deck around this. Not that I see that being competitive, but I can definitely see someone trying it in casual. This being "target player" instead of "each player" or "each opponent" has interesting political implications in multiplayer.
Creativity (1.5/3) Uniqueness - A good twist on milling that fits the block it's supposed to come from, but nothing more than that. (3/3) Flavor - I feel like I've already said this before, but this is a card with perfect flavor too. The name is very good, the mechanical flavor is there and it's good, the flavor text is very well done too.
Polish (3/3) Quality - All good. (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 — Subject to change prior to the deadline
Simoom Invoker2W
Creature - Human Wizard (U)
Vigilance
Deserts you control have "t: This land deals 1 damage to target attacking creature. Activate this ability only during the end of combat step". It wasn't long until Naktamun survivors had developed a use for deadly desert winds.
2/3
Design - (2/3) Appeal: Lands left untapped are lands that can't be used to cast stuff. Deserts aren't really Timmy's thing anyway, and this isn't the way to get him interested in them. There are lots of ways to exploit this, so Johnny's on-board. To Spike, this just reads "Value value value, value value." (2/3) Elegance: You get clever points for working in the Oracle text from the original Desert. However, that wording only exists to make an awkward ability fit the rules-text template. Wizards doesn't like referencing nuts & bolts game terms like "end of combat step" on printed cards — it's cumbersome and requires too much thought to figure out how it's supposed to work. Of course, to anyone who is familiar with the details of the steps and phases, this wording sounds perfectly fine, so it's not a total bust. I'm taking a full point here, instead of Viability or Quality, as there are technically no mistakes, and the effect is fully supported by the rules.
Development - (2/3) Viability: White has no problem with this effect, and no rules are broken. Because this grants the ping ability to ALL deserts you control, the potential for obscenity is high enough that I think this should have been balanced to be rare instead of uncommon. Depending on the density of deserts in the draft format, it might be OK in limited, at least. (1.5/3) Balance: This won't be super good very often in limited, but at least it's still a 2/3 with vigilance for 2W, so it's always at least playable. But when that second ability becomes more than just incidental value, some pretty degenerate limited decks will result. There's a reason Desert didn't see a reprint in Amonkhet or HOU. If it didn't have vigilance, this wouldn't be as much an issue in my mind. But it can attack AND block, making your deserts that much more capable of finishing off blocked creatures. A common result, in both limited and constructed, will be opponents afraid of attacking, and gummed-up boardstates. Not fun in limited, but it would easily slot into control decks for that reason.
Creativity - (1/3) Uniqueness: So... it makes all of your deserts Deserts. Certainly fun and cheeky, but not especially unique. Pairing it with a vigilance creature makes it a bit more interesting, though. (2/3) Flavor: I don't like that this has vigilance. "Invoker" implies that he is stirring up the simooms himself, not keeping a watchful eye on the desert weather. The name and flavor text are fine, otherwise. Neither is offensive, nor inspired. Besides vigilance, the mechanics all seem to work towards the stated flavor of the card.
Polish - (3/3) Quality: All good. (2/2) *Main Challenge: Yes, it cares about deserts. (2/2) Subchallenges: Nonland and nongreen (+2)
Total: 17.5/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Buried Beneath the Sands3B
Sorcery (U)
Destroy target creature. Its controller loses X life and you gain X life, where X is equal to the number of Deserts you control.
Design - (2.5/3) Appeal: Timmy says yes, please. Johnny is already planning a mono-desert deck with this as a finisher. Spike doesn't like how obvious it is, but will definitely play it. (3/3) Elegance: Very straightforward and uncomplicated.
Development - (3/3) Viability: Very black, and no rules issues. The effect does feel uncommon, even if it should cost more (See Balance). (1/3) Balance: In some decks, that second clause could easily end the game, or at least seal your opponent's fate. I wouldn't normally complain about a CMC4 removal spell with an upside, but 4 mana is already about the going rate for no-strings creature removal in black, and that life swing has the potential to be really, really good (See: Siege Rhino). It wouldn't matter much in multiplayer, given the higher starting life totals of most formats, but this would define and probably warp any limited or constructed format where it was legal.
Creativity - (1/3) Uniqueness: Nothing new is happening here, except for the required desert reference. I understand that at uncommon it's tough to really blaze new trails, but there was no restriction on rarity to blame this time. (2.5/3) Flavor: Name works fine. The name and mechanical flavor work well enough together that flavor text isn't necessary. My only gripe is that the life swing doesn't make too much sense here. Flavor-wise, it would have made more sense to limit how big a creature you could destroy based on the number of deserts you control. Not a huge deal. I'm only mentioning it because there was a better flavor option.
Polish - (2.5/3) Quality: "equal to" is extraneous (-0.5). That wording hasn't been used since Unglued. (2/2) *Main Challenge: Yes, it cares about deserts. (2/2) Subchallenges: Nonland and nongreen (+2)
Total: 19.5/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Banished into the WastesW
Instant (U)
Shuffle target creature with toughness less than or equal to the number of Desert you control. It doesn’t always take a wall to make a labyrinth.
Design - (1.5/3) Appeal: Timmy isn't interested in packing his deck full of deserts just to make this deece. Spike will wait to see if a Mono-Deserts deck ends up being worth the effort, and Johnny will be the one to eagerly brew that deck up. (3/3) Elegance: Simple and interesting. Great combo.
Development - (1.5/3) Viability: Other cards that put permanents into libraries currently exist only in blue (albeit, without the shuffling clause). The only card that shuffles a target permanent into a library is Rishadan Pawnshop, and all other cards with Rishadan in their names are blue. Long story short, there's ample precedence for this effect in blue, and none for this effect in white. In a limited deck, uncommon feels fine for this. In constructed, it's possible for this to be a better Path to Exile or Swords to Plowshares, but rarity doesn't matter much for constructed. No points deducted for rarity. Wizards shies away from printing forced shuffle effects, especially on non-rares. The last two I'm aware of have been Indomitable Creativity and Primal Command (3/3) Balance: This will be pretty good in limited some of the time, very good in any standard it shares with lots of Deserts, and probably great in some eternal decks that have yet to be brewed up. To make this feel overpowered would require a critical mass of Deserts, which carries with it significant deckbuilding limitations. I don't think there's a balance issue here, despite there being plenty of growing room for power level as more deserts are printed.
Creativity - (3/3) Uniqueness: "Shuffle target [anything] into its owner's library" currently only exists on Rishadan Pawnshop. I'd call that pretty unique, and I'm surprised this effect hasn't been printed again. (2/3) Flavor: The flavor all meshes together nicely. The name would flow far better in present-tense rather than past-tense. "Banish to the Wastes" (See also: Quality). The flavor text would sound so much more professional like this: "It doesn’t always take walls to make a labyrinth." (Or even simply "A labyrinth needn't have walls.") Worth noting is that no cards with "wastes" in their name have been printed since the printing of Wastes in Oath of the Gatewatch. Possibly a coincidence, but Wizards may also have decided to retire that word for cards that don't interact with cards named Wastes. This is just an observation. No points deducted.
Polish - (1.5/3) Quality: What should I shuffle target creature into? (-1); Banishment grammar options are as follows: "Banish into [undesirable state]" or Banish to [specific place]. (-0.5) (2/2) *Main Challenge: Yes, it cares about deserts. (2/2) Subchallenges: Nonland and nongreen (+2)
Total: 19.5/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Remember Your Name2UU
Sorcery (R)
Draw two cards, then you may discard a Desert card. If you do, you may search your library for a Jace planeswalker, reveal it to all players, and put it into your hand. Shuffle your library. Freed from the painful thoughts of others by the isolation of the dunes, Jace Beleren wandered in search of his identity and his purpose.
Design - (2/3) Appeal: Jace isn't Timmy's FAVORITE planeswalker, but he loves casting planeswalker in general. Tutoring for walkers makes walkers more likely to hit the battlefield. Johnny doesn't like straightforward and obvious the lines of play, but the whole "value from Deserts" idea is at least a little appealing. Spike came for the draw, and stayed for the Jace. (2.5/3) Elegance: It's very elegant to my eye. The only thing that trips me up is that the name didn't prepare me for a card that cares about deserts. It's minor, but it muddies the mechanical flavor a little.
Development - (3/3) Viability: Planeswalker tutoring always needs to be rare, imo, so good job there. Should blue ever be able to get this effect, though? Maybe it works, so long as there are limits to which walkers can be tutored up. I've decided it feels OK to me on this card, but only because it's so restricted. (2/3) Balance: I love this in limited, so long as it shares a set with a Jace (obvs), as it isn't totally a dead card without anything to tutor. But that incidental walker value would be so sick to pull off! In constructed, I'm less enthusiastic. The fact that it draws and loots makes it potentially a lot better than Call the Gatewatch, even if it can only get a Jace. Four mana is not much to pay for drawing, looting, and tutoring in a single card. The Jace clause and the Desert clause help it not be obviously busted, but it's still imminently bustable. Commander players in blue are already running a million Jaces, but I'm unsure whether they care to fill their decks with Deserts just for this card. It could work, given the deck.
Creativity - (2.5/3) Uniqueness: Planeswalker tutoring HAS been done in Call the Gatewatch but it's still a very new, unexplored mechanic. I feel it should always require a heavy anchoring in a set's narrative to be done correctly, and this execution even out-does its predecessor in that regard. Creatively implemented, even if it's not breaking new ground. (3/3) Flavor: Very nice treatment of flavor. The name is formatted a little unconventionally, but it fits with the rest of the card's flavor well enough not to matter too much. I love this flavor text, as it tells a story without sounding contrived or arbitrary.
Polish - (1/3) Quality: Corrected rules text: "Draw two cards, then you may discard a Desert card. If you do, you may search your library for a Jace planeswalker card, and reveal it to all players, put it into your hand, then shuffle your library." Reference: Trail of Mystery. (There are other, less-used ways to word this, but the version in the entry isn't one of them). One of these errors makes the card not work as intended (As worded, you will ALWAYS shuffle, regardless of discarding or not), so -1 point. The other two are -1 point total. (2/2) *Main Challenge: Yes, it cares about deserts. (2/2) Subchallenges: Nonland and nongreen (+2)
Total: 20/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
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.)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
(This banner is my own elaboration on the art of the card Hour of Promise by Jonas De Ro.)
July MCC Round 3
"Sandstorm"
This month we're going to focus on the mechanics and flavor of HOU. With two insect gods taken care of, we only have another one to focus on this round before taking on the God-Pharaoh himself. Now, what happens when the barrier that protects your city from the harsh desert gets eaten away by locusts? Take shelter where you can, because the sand is going to storm inside!
Main challenge: Design a card that explicitly interacts with the specific Desert land type in any way. Please read clarifications. The desert is making the city part of itself.
Subchallenge 1: The card is not a land itself. Not even the trial gods' monuments are going to stand.
Subchallenge 2: The card's color identity does not contain green. All this can't be natural. A dark force must have twisted the world.
Main Challenge
Any interaction with Deserts counts, not just the "if you control a Desert or there is one in the graveyard" that we see in HOU. Of course, that does count too though.
What matters is that the interaction must specifically be with the Desert land type. The Desert subtype must be specifically and explicitly mentioned. Interacting with any land does NOT meet this challenge. For example, "destroy target land" is NOT good, while "destroy target Desert" is. Interacting with any land but with an additional bonus if that land is a Desert is also fine. For example, "destroy target land. If it was a Desert, its controller loses 2 life" is good.
Your card can do anything else in addition to the Desert interaction.
Subchallenge 1
Should be self-explanatory. Your card does not have the land card type.
Subchallenge 2
Remember that color identity includes all colored mana symbols of any kind not just in the mana cost but also in the rules text. This means you can't have any green mana symbols anywhere on the card, including hybrid mana symbols containing green or green Phyrexian mana.
Feel free to ask any additional questions you might have in the discussion thread.
A friendly reminder I left everyone a few months ago but it's still valid:
(X/3) Appeal: Do the different player psychographics (Timmy/Johhny/Spike) have a use for the card?
(X/3) Elegance: Is the card easily understandable at a glance? Do all the flavor and mechanics combined as a whole make sense?
Development -
(X/3) Viability: How well does the card fit into the color wheel? Does it break or bend the rules of the game? Is it the appropriate rarity?
(X/3) Balance: Does the card have a power level appropriate for contemporary constructed/limited environments without breaking them? Does it play well in casual and multiplayer formats? Does it create or fit into a deck/archetype? Does it create an oppressive environment?
Creativity -
(X/3) Uniqueness: Has a card like this ever been printed before? Does it use new mechanics, ideas, or design space? Does it combine old ideas in a new way? Overall, does it feel “fresh”?
(X/3) Flavor: Does the name seem realistic for a card? Does the flavor text sound professional? Do all the flavor elements synch together to please Vorthos players?
Polish -
(X/3) Quality: Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
(X/2) *Main Challenge: Was the main challenge satisfied? Was it approached in a unique or interesting way? Does the card fit the intent of the challenge?
(X/2) Subchallenges: One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Total: X/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
DEADLINES
Design deadline: Saturday, July 22nd 2017 23:59 EDT
Judging deadline: Wednesday, July 26th 2017 23:59 EDT
JUDGES
bravelion83
StonerOfKruphix
Rocco
Blydden
PLAYERS
admirableadmiral
doomfish
iphanx
Jimmy Groove
Necarg(didn't post a card within the design deadline)Raptorchan
The_Hittite
willows
Only the above players are allowed to submit a card. To everyone else, better luck next month!
This is the versus round, so players will be paired in four two-player matchups each judged by two judges. The player who gets the highest combined score from the two judges advances to the final round.BRACKETS
Judges: bravelion83 and StonerOfKruphix
Three-player group:
admirableadmiral, doomfish, The_Hittite
The top 2 combined scores from this group will advance to the final round. The lowest combined score will be eliminated.
Judges: Rocco and Blydden
Classic matchups (best combined score advance, lowest combined score is eliminated):
Raptorchan vs. willows
iphanx vs. Jimmy Groove
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.)
Enchantment [R]
At the beginning of your upkeep, discard a card, then draw a card.
At the beginning of your end step, if there are ten or more Desert cards in your graveyard, you win the game.
"My only regret is that I could destroy this plane but once."
—Nicol Bolas
Sorcery (R)
Draw two cards, then you may discard a Desert card. If you do, you may search your library for a Jace planeswalker, reveal it to all players, and put it into your hand. Shuffle your library.
Freed from the painful thoughts of others by the isolation of the dunes, Jace Beleren wandered in search of his identity and his purpose.
Creature - Human Wizard (U)
Vigilance
Deserts you control have "t: This land deals 1 damage to target attacking creature. Activate this ability only during the end of combat step".
It wasn't long until Naktamun survivors had developed a use for deadly desert winds.
2/3
Artifact [R]
2, T: Target player puts the top X cards of his or her library into his or her graveyard, where X is the number of Deserts you control plus the number of Desert cards in your graveyard.
With time, the desert sands can grind even the mightiest empire into dust.
Image Source
Instant (U)
Shuffle target creature with toughness less than or equal to the number of Desert you control.
It doesn’t always take a wall to make a labyrinth.
Creature - Illusion (U)
Whenever ~ becomes the target of a spell or ability, sacrifice it, unless you sacrifice a Desert.
"You'd think the dangers here that are real would be enough!"
-Ahntep, survivor from Naktamun
4/4
Multiple instances of lifelink on the same creature are redundant.
Multiple instances of lifelink on the same creature are redundant.
—Eli Shiffrin, Rules Manager, on a design stacking lifelink instances
Sorcery (U)
Destroy target creature. Its controller loses X life and you gain X life, where X is equal to the number of Deserts you control.
BRACKETS
Judges: bravelion83 and StonerOfKruphix
Three-player group:
admirableadmiral, doomfish, The_Hittite
The top 2 combined scores from this group will advance to the final round. The lowest combined score will be eliminated.
Judges: Rocco and Blydden
Classic matchups (best combined score advance, lowest combined score is eliminated):
Raptorchan vs. willows
iphanx vs. Jimmy Groove
I'm sorry but with an odd number of players this is the best I can do in the versus round. Now let's get to judging.
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.)
Great cards. I look forward to analyzing them later today. EDIT: Halfway done. Will finish tomorrow.
Raptorchan VERSUS willows
(1.5/3) Appeal: Tammy is disinterested in this card.
Jenny likes this card as a puzzle piece to her 'deserts matter' deck, but it is too reactive to always be useful.
Spike is appealed to this card. The creature is useful by itself without any deserts, and the card overall ends up pulling more than its fair share of weight with deserts.
(2/3) Elegance: The "end of combat step" clause has not been used, since, well, Desert. The resulting lack of familiarity with this card's timing (which affects multiple cards on the battlefield during combat) is enough to constitute a major inelegance.
Development -
(2/3) Viability: This card is definitely White (and I cannot picture what other color this card could even be in). However, this should surely be a Rare and not an Uncommon due to it affecting multiple (if specific) cards in very important ways.
(1.5/3) Balance: Without any deserts, this card is still fairly playable. With deserts, this card becomes rather oppressive, partly because it also has vigilance. Otherwise, my fellow judge, Rocco, provided a better explanation regarding this card than I could succinctly provide.
Creativity -
(1.5/3) Uniqueness: This is a modernized attempt at the card Desert. I cannot give more than half credit for such a spirited attempt, as spirited as it may be.
(1.5/3) Flavor: The mechanics of this card are quite flavorful; the flavor text of this card is alright. However, the name "Invoker" has a certain pattern related to it by cards such as Frostwind Invoker and Valakut Invoker. Since this card does not repeat the pattern set by the twelve official invokers before it, this card's name is a detriment rather than a boon.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Perfect!
(2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge met!
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges met!
Total: 17/25
Final thoughts: Hey, I heard that you liked the card Desert, so I made all of your deserts into deserts. Badum-tish!
In all seriousness, this card did not fix the issues that the original Desert had. The aforementioned card was simply too oppressive to play against, and (in my honest opinion) this card does not tone down that problem enough to turn out well.
(2.5/3) Appeal: Timmy is appealed to by most X cards, and this is no exception.
Johnny would like to use this in a deserts deck, but the upside is too small to serve as anything more than a stepping stone but not a win condition on its own.
Spike is definitely appealed to by this card; it is efficient, splashable creature removal with upsides.
(3/3) Elegance: Marvelously elegant!
Development -
(3/3) Viability: This card is not only very Black, but it is also an excellent Uncommon. No viability concerns here.
(2.5/3) Balance: I have to heavily disagree with my fellow judge, Rocco, regarding this card's balance. The "going rate" for Uncommon Black unconditional creature removal at instant speed is 3 (using Murder as precedent). This card is a 4 mana sorcery, which allows it room for a moderate upside.
Obviously, with no deserts, this card is below par, so one does have to draft deserts alongside it for the sake of efficiency and to benefit from the upside. As a result, this card is smartly pushed in an environment with as many deserts in it as the Amonkhet block does. I do think that this card at 2BB would have earned a perfect balance score (due to the loss of splashability), but as-is it is definitely more appealing.
Creativity -
(1/3) Uniqueness: The desert clause is all that is unique about this card.
(2/3) Flavor: Great name, great mechanical flavor, but there was plenty of room for flavor text. The flavor text could have helped a lot to better explain the 'drain' as a result of the number of deserts that you control.
Polish -
(2.5/3) Quality: The phrase "equal to" is nothing more than unnecessary rules text and should be nixed (minus half a point).
(2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge met!
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges met!
Total: 20.5/25
Final thoughts: This is a very eloquent way to complete this challenge. Bravo, as bravelion83 might say!
iphanx VERSUS Jimmy Groove
(1/3) Appeal: Tammy is bored by this card until it can remove almost any creature.
Jenny does like this card, as definitely it is worth using in a deck that cares about deserts.
Spike both likes and dislikes this card, as it is completely useless without deserts (and can also be countered by combat tricks that increase toughness), but it also rewards smart deckbuilding and skillful play.
(2.5/3) Elegance: Something as strange as requiring your opponent to shuffle a card from the battlefield into their library constitutes a minor inelegance.
Development -
(1/3) Viability: This card is absolutely not in color for White at all. Perhaps this card could be in Black instead, thanks to the precedents of Defeat and Reave Soul?
This card is also too variable in power level to safely be an Uncommon; it should definitely be a Rare instead.
(1/3) Balance: First off, this card is completely useless without deserts. It needs, not one, but two deserts to be worthwhile; three or more deserts under your control causes it to become quite good, if not becomes completely out of bounds in terms of power level.
I do wish that this card was a less volatile and 'all or nothing'. Having a dead card in your hand resulting from something that I would have to call 'desert screw' is just kind of awful. Having to play against undercosted removal is also kind of miserable. The happy medium here for this card is, admittedly, rather elusive.
Creativity -
(3/3) Uniqueness: I myself cannot find any other precedent for this card's existence other than Rishadan Pawnshop, a card older than the year 2000. Congratulations.
(1.5/3) Flavor: The name of this card is alright (see Quality); the flavor text of this card is alright. Rocco gave better suggestions for fixing up this card's flavor text than I can.
There is one personal quibble that I have regarding this card's overall flavor. Why does it not exile instead if the word "Banish" is literally in this card's name?
Polish -
(1/3) Quality: Firstly, the name of this card should be 'Banished to the Wastes' for the sake of grammatical correctness (minus half a point).
Secondly, this card's line of rules text has multiple mistakes. I would write it as follows: 'Shuffle target creature with toughness less than or equal to the number of Deserts you control into its owner's library.' (minus one and a half points)
(2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge met!
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges met!
Total: 15/25
Final thoughts: Design-wise, this card should never have scaled off of the number of Deserts you control. If this card was a little bit more like Fatal Push (except improving based upon controlling a Desert or having a Desert in your graveyard instead of having Revolt active), it definitely would have fared better.
(1/3) Appeal: Simply put, Timmy likes planeswalkers, and this card involves planeswalkers.
Johnny dislikes this card, for it does not allow for creative deckbuilding at all. The deserts plus Jace pair of restrictions on this card causes the resulting deck to be far too obvious to be at all interesting.
Spike would play this card if the relevant deck was in the metagame. Otherwise, she would simply not play it.
(3/3) Elegance: Elegant, but see Quality.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: This card is Blue through and through (Jace Beleren is Blue too). This card definitely needed to be Rare, and thankfully it is indeed Rare.
(2/3) Balance: This card basically requires both deserts and a Jace planeswalker to be worth playing (so it is basically dead in Limited).
I am actually inclined to think that this card is overcosted. The specificity that this card asks for results in an entire deck needing to be built with it in mind. I cannot picture that deck ever being even remotely playable in even a semi-competitive environment.
Creativity -
(2.5/3) Uniqueness: The most unique component of this card is not the planeswalker tutoring (thanks to planeswalker decks), but the specific requirement of discarding a Desert.
(1/3) Flavor: I dislike the name (the name really should explicitly mention Jace somehow); the flavor text is alright. If Jace was a planeswalker that was mechanically connected to Deserts, this card would fare a lot better with relating its flavor with its mechanics, but it does a fine job regardless.
Polish -
(0/3) Quality: There are two extraneous spaces in this card's rules text (minus half a point each).
The second sentence of the second line of rules text possess multiple errors. The word 'card' should come after the word "planeswalker" (minus half a point), the phrase "to all players" is redundant and should be nixed (minus half a point), the word "and" is redundant and should be nixed (minus half a point), and the third sentence should be incorporated into the second sentence with the word 'then' after a comma (minus half a point). So, this card's rules text would read as follows:
'Draw two cards, then you may discard a Desert card. If you do, you may search your library for a Jace planeswalker card, reveal it, put it into your hand, then shuffle your library.'
(2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge met!
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges met!
Total: 16.5/25
Final thought: At least this card is the kind of card that sort of makes sense in a planeswalker deck.
Truth be told, this is the sort of card that is more reliant on card art than anything else in order to pull off its intended flavor.
willows — 20.5
iphanx — 15
Jimmy Groove — 16.5
Yes! Someone got the intended reference hidden in the round's title! A cookie for you as a prize:
Yes, in this bracket too. My scores are all close and quite high this round. I think we saw some amazing designs this round.
Judgments complete, not final until deadline.
Amonkhet's Ruin 2RR
Enchantment [R]
At the beginning of your upkeep, discard a card, then draw a card.
At the beginning of your end step, if there are ten or more Desert cards in your graveyard, you win the game.
"My only regret is that I could destroy this plane but once."
—Nicol Bolas
Design
(2.5/3) Appeal - Timmy likes alternate win conditions, even though he probably likes one that care about the battlefield better. Johnny also likes them, as each of them is a unique puzzle to solve. Spike likes them too if they're actually efficiently achievable. I don't know if this could qualify, but even if it doesn't, rummaging by itself is something Spike can get behind too. He prefers looting, but he still gets to dig into his deck.
(3/3) Elegance - I see no problems here. The symmetry between an upkeep trigger and an end step trigger is very nice, as is the fact that the effect of the former feeds into that of the latter.
Development
(2.5/3) Viability - Rummaging is red. The alternate win condition does feel red, as it cares about lands in graveyards, which usually get there via land destruction, which is red. Now, in this case you'll probably get Deserts into your graveyard by cycling or sacrificing them instead, but that doesn't change the feel of that ability. This card honestly just feels mythic to me, even though alternate win conditions have been at regular rare before, even in post-mythic era sets.
(2.5/3) Balance - The mana cost looks realistic enough to me. Ten is also a high enough threshold that should avoid any potential problems. I like how you can discard Deserts to the first ability to get closer to the win condition, it's kind of an in-card combo. As for playability, this is just not a limited card, it would be very hard to have 10+ Deserts in your limited deck, but at least rummaging still gives it a use there. In constructed, this makes interesting new decks come up by itself, even if I don't think these Desert decks would be competitive. I think they could totally have their place in casual, with some fringe Standard play if they prove strong enough, kind of like Maze's End. That's not a bad place to be for a card like this.
Creativity
(2.5/3) Uniqueness - A Desert-related alternate win condition has to score high here, even if the first ability is just rummaging.
(3/3) Flavor - Name, flavor text and card concept are all very good both by themselves and in combination.
Polish
(3/3) Quality - All good.
(2/2) Main Challenge - Good.
(2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
Total: 23/25
Fata Morgana 2U
Creature - Illusion (U)
Whenever ~ becomes the target of a spell or ability, sacrifice it, unless you sacrifice a Desert.
"You'd think the dangers here that are real would be enough!"
-Ahntep, survivor from Naktamun
4/4
Design
(2.5/3) Appeal - Timmy likes a big creature but doesn't like to sacrifice it. Johnny might do something like using an effect of his own to target this then choose to sacrifice a Desert and trigger something out of that. Spike likes an undercosted creature and doesn't mind the drawback.
(3/3) Elegance - No problems here. Short, clean and very easy to understand.
Development
(3/3) Viability - The Illusion ability is blue and I think rarity is right. Phantasmal Dragon (another undercosted card with the Illusion drawback) feels very close to this and it's uncommon, so I guess this can be too without any problem.
(2/3) Balance - This is definitely limited playable, and I think it would be even without the Desert clause. Still, I can't really see this in any form of competitive constructed. I see no problems in casual or multiplayer.
Creativity
(1.5/3) Uniqueness - This is just a twist on the classic Illusion ability. Good and it fits the block it's supposed to come from, but still nothing more than that.
(3/3) Flavor - The name is very good, and I didn't know it was used in English too. Here in Italy it's also a well known expression because of a famous song, but I've honestly never used it nor seen it being used in English before. Here it just fits wonderfully with the mechanics and the flavor text, and they all fit together very well with one another too.
Polish
(1.5/3) Quality - The use of ~ as a placeholder for the name of the card is not approved in the MCC: You should write it out like it would be in the real card (well known fact, -1). No comma should be there before "unless" (-0.5).
(2/2) Main Challenge - Good.
(2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
Total: 20.5/25
Forgotten Monument 3
Artifact [R]
2, T: Target player puts the top X cards of his or her library into his or her graveyard, where X is the number of Deserts you control plus the number of Desert cards in your graveyard.
With time, the desert sands can grind even the mightiest empire into dust.
Design
(2/3) Appeal - Timmy likes milling. Johnny has the challenge to maximize this. I don't think Spike would be interested.
(3/3) Elegance - No problems here. Not too long and very easy to understand.
Development
(2.5/3) Viability - I'm a bit concerned about allowing every color access to milling, which is supposed to be primary blue and secondary black, but artifacts have already played in that design space before. This is the kind of card that probably needs to be rare because of its gameplay even though it doesn't read rare to me, but it might just be me.
(2/3) Balance - I don't think I'd play this card in limited, unless milling is an archetype there, and I can't remember that having ever happened. EDIT: It was pointed out to me that Grindclock was played in limited and that milling 40 cards is way easier than milling 60. While I've never personally played with Grindclock in limited, the second point is just true. In constructed this gets better, as you can build a whole Desert + Mill deck around this. Not that I see that being competitive, but I can definitely see someone trying it in casual. This being "target player" instead of "each player" or "each opponent" has interesting political implications in multiplayer.
Creativity
(1.5/3) Uniqueness - A good twist on milling that fits the block it's supposed to come from, but nothing more than that.
(3/3) Flavor - I feel like I've already said this before, but this is a card with perfect flavor too. The name is very good, the mechanical flavor is there and it's good, the flavor text is very well done too.
Polish
(3/3) Quality - All good.
(2/2) Main Challenge - Good.
(2/2) Subchallenges - Both met.
Total: 21/25
admirableadmiral: 23
doomfish: 20.5
The_Hittite: 21
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.)
Simoom Invoker 2W
Creature - Human Wizard (U)
Vigilance
Deserts you control have "t: This land deals 1 damage to target attacking creature. Activate this ability only during the end of combat step".
It wasn't long until Naktamun survivors had developed a use for deadly desert winds.
2/3
Design -
(2/3) Appeal: Lands left untapped are lands that can't be used to cast stuff. Deserts aren't really Timmy's thing anyway, and this isn't the way to get him interested in them. There are lots of ways to exploit this, so Johnny's on-board. To Spike, this just reads "Value value value, value value."
(2/3) Elegance: You get clever points for working in the Oracle text from the original Desert. However, that wording only exists to make an awkward ability fit the rules-text template. Wizards doesn't like referencing nuts & bolts game terms like "end of combat step" on printed cards — it's cumbersome and requires too much thought to figure out how it's supposed to work. Of course, to anyone who is familiar with the details of the steps and phases, this wording sounds perfectly fine, so it's not a total bust. I'm taking a full point here, instead of Viability or Quality, as there are technically no mistakes, and the effect is fully supported by the rules.
Development -
(2/3) Viability: White has no problem with this effect, and no rules are broken. Because this grants the ping ability to ALL deserts you control, the potential for obscenity is high enough that I think this should have been balanced to be rare instead of uncommon. Depending on the density of deserts in the draft format, it might be OK in limited, at least.
(1.5/3) Balance: This won't be super good very often in limited, but at least it's still a 2/3 with vigilance for 2W, so it's always at least playable. But when that second ability becomes more than just incidental value, some pretty degenerate limited decks will result. There's a reason Desert didn't see a reprint in Amonkhet or HOU. If it didn't have vigilance, this wouldn't be as much an issue in my mind. But it can attack AND block, making your deserts that much more capable of finishing off blocked creatures. A common result, in both limited and constructed, will be opponents afraid of attacking, and gummed-up boardstates. Not fun in limited, but it would easily slot into control decks for that reason.
Creativity -
(1/3) Uniqueness: So... it makes all of your deserts Deserts. Certainly fun and cheeky, but not especially unique. Pairing it with a vigilance creature makes it a bit more interesting, though.
(2/3) Flavor: I don't like that this has vigilance. "Invoker" implies that he is stirring up the simooms himself, not keeping a watchful eye on the desert weather. The name and flavor text are fine, otherwise. Neither is offensive, nor inspired. Besides vigilance, the mechanics all seem to work towards the stated flavor of the card.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: All good.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Yes, it cares about deserts.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Nonland and nongreen (+2)
Total: 17.5/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Sorcery (U)
Destroy target creature. Its controller loses X life and you gain X life, where X is equal to the number of Deserts you control.
Design -
(2.5/3) Appeal: Timmy says yes, please. Johnny is already planning a mono-desert deck with this as a finisher. Spike doesn't like how obvious it is, but will definitely play it.
(3/3) Elegance: Very straightforward and uncomplicated.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: Very black, and no rules issues. The effect does feel uncommon, even if it should cost more (See Balance).
(1/3) Balance: In some decks, that second clause could easily end the game, or at least seal your opponent's fate. I wouldn't normally complain about a CMC4 removal spell with an upside, but 4 mana is already about the going rate for no-strings creature removal in black, and that life swing has the potential to be really, really good (See: Siege Rhino). It wouldn't matter much in multiplayer, given the higher starting life totals of most formats, but this would define and probably warp any limited or constructed format where it was legal.
Creativity -
(1/3) Uniqueness: Nothing new is happening here, except for the required desert reference. I understand that at uncommon it's tough to really blaze new trails, but there was no restriction on rarity to blame this time.
(2.5/3) Flavor: Name works fine. The name and mechanical flavor work well enough together that flavor text isn't necessary. My only gripe is that the life swing doesn't make too much sense here. Flavor-wise, it would have made more sense to limit how big a creature you could destroy based on the number of deserts you control. Not a huge deal. I'm only mentioning it because there was a better flavor option.
Polish -
(2.5/3) Quality: "equal to" is extraneous (-0.5). That wording hasn't been used since Unglued.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Yes, it cares about deserts.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Nonland and nongreen (+2)
Total: 19.5/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Instant (U)
Shuffle target creature with toughness less than or equal to the number of Desert you control.
It doesn’t always take a wall to make a labyrinth.
Design -
(1.5/3) Appeal: Timmy isn't interested in packing his deck full of deserts just to make this deece. Spike will wait to see if a Mono-Deserts deck ends up being worth the effort, and Johnny will be the one to eagerly brew that deck up.
(3/3) Elegance: Simple and interesting. Great combo.
Development -
(1.5/3) Viability: Other cards that put permanents into libraries currently exist only in blue (albeit, without the shuffling clause). The only card that shuffles a target permanent into a library is Rishadan Pawnshop, and all other cards with Rishadan in their names are blue. Long story short, there's ample precedence for this effect in blue, and none for this effect in white. In a limited deck, uncommon feels fine for this. In constructed, it's possible for this to be a better Path to Exile or Swords to Plowshares, but rarity doesn't matter much for constructed. No points deducted for rarity. Wizards shies away from printing forced shuffle effects, especially on non-rares. The last two I'm aware of have been Indomitable Creativity and Primal Command
(3/3) Balance: This will be pretty good in limited some of the time, very good in any standard it shares with lots of Deserts, and probably great in some eternal decks that have yet to be brewed up. To make this feel overpowered would require a critical mass of Deserts, which carries with it significant deckbuilding limitations. I don't think there's a balance issue here, despite there being plenty of growing room for power level as more deserts are printed.
Creativity -
(3/3) Uniqueness: "Shuffle target [anything] into its owner's library" currently only exists on Rishadan Pawnshop. I'd call that pretty unique, and I'm surprised this effect hasn't been printed again.
(2/3) Flavor: The flavor all meshes together nicely. The name would flow far better in present-tense rather than past-tense. "Banish to the Wastes" (See also: Quality). The flavor text would sound so much more professional like this: "It doesn’t always take walls to make a labyrinth." (Or even simply "A labyrinth needn't have walls.") Worth noting is that no cards with "wastes" in their name have been printed since the printing of Wastes in Oath of the Gatewatch. Possibly a coincidence, but Wizards may also have decided to retire that word for cards that don't interact with cards named Wastes. This is just an observation. No points deducted.
Polish -
(1.5/3) Quality: What should I shuffle target creature into? (-1); Banishment grammar options are as follows: "Banish into [undesirable state]" or Banish to [specific place]. (-0.5)
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Yes, it cares about deserts.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Nonland and nongreen (+2)
Total: 19.5/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Sorcery (R)
Draw two cards, then you may discard a Desert card. If you do, you may search your library for a Jace planeswalker, reveal it to all players, and put it into your hand. Shuffle your library.
Freed from the painful thoughts of others by the isolation of the dunes, Jace Beleren wandered in search of his identity and his purpose.
Design -
(2/3) Appeal: Jace isn't Timmy's FAVORITE planeswalker, but he loves casting planeswalker in general. Tutoring for walkers makes walkers more likely to hit the battlefield. Johnny doesn't like straightforward and obvious the lines of play, but the whole "value from Deserts" idea is at least a little appealing. Spike came for the draw, and stayed for the Jace.
(2.5/3) Elegance: It's very elegant to my eye. The only thing that trips me up is that the name didn't prepare me for a card that cares about deserts. It's minor, but it muddies the mechanical flavor a little.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: Planeswalker tutoring always needs to be rare, imo, so good job there. Should blue ever be able to get this effect, though? Maybe it works, so long as there are limits to which walkers can be tutored up. I've decided it feels OK to me on this card, but only because it's so restricted.
(2/3) Balance: I love this in limited, so long as it shares a set with a Jace (obvs), as it isn't totally a dead card without anything to tutor. But that incidental walker value would be so sick to pull off! In constructed, I'm less enthusiastic. The fact that it draws and loots makes it potentially a lot better than Call the Gatewatch, even if it can only get a Jace. Four mana is not much to pay for drawing, looting, and tutoring in a single card. The Jace clause and the Desert clause help it not be obviously busted, but it's still imminently bustable. Commander players in blue are already running a million Jaces, but I'm unsure whether they care to fill their decks with Deserts just for this card. It could work, given the deck.
Creativity -
(2.5/3) Uniqueness: Planeswalker tutoring HAS been done in Call the Gatewatch but it's still a very new, unexplored mechanic. I feel it should always require a heavy anchoring in a set's narrative to be done correctly, and this execution even out-does its predecessor in that regard. Creatively implemented, even if it's not breaking new ground.
(3/3) Flavor: Very nice treatment of flavor. The name is formatted a little unconventionally, but it fits with the rest of the card's flavor well enough not to matter too much. I love this flavor text, as it tells a story without sounding contrived or arbitrary.
Polish -
(1/3) Quality: Corrected rules text: "Draw two cards, then you may discard a Desert card. If you do, you may search your library for a Jace planeswalker card,
andreveal itto all players, put it into your hand, then shuffle your library." Reference: Trail of Mystery. (There are other, less-used ways to word this, but the version in the entry isn't one of them). One of these errors makes the card not work as intended (As worded, you will ALWAYS shuffle, regardless of discarding or not), so -1 point. The other two are -1 point total.(2/2) *Main Challenge: Yes, it cares about deserts.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Nonland and nongreen (+2)
Total: 20/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
vs.
willows 19.5
iphanx 19.5
vs.
Jimmy Groove 20
admirableadmiral: 23 + 22 = 45
The_Hittite: 21 + 20 = 41
doomfish: 20.5 + 20 = 40.5
willows: 19.5 + 20.5 = 40
Raptorchan: 17.5 + 17 = 34.5
Jimmy Groove: 20 + 16.5 = 36.5
iphanx: 19.5 + 15 = 34.5
The final round will be posted in a few minutes.
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.)