MTG Salvation

Quote from The_Hittite »

Bolas’ Dominion 6BB
Sorcery [M]
You control target opponent during his or her next turn. Exile Bolas’ Dominion.
Overload 7UBR (You may cast this spell for its overload cost. If you do, change its text by replacing all instances of "target" with "each.")
The surviving guilds were given a choice: kneel before Bolas or be knelt.

Design -
(2/3) Appeal: Timmy loves this card very much; controlling an entire multiplayer table for a whole round of turns is the sort of unforgettable experience that can last for years to come.
This is an effectively expressive card for Johnny. However, the self-exile resolution text prevents this card from ever realizing its full combo potential.
This card is simply far too expensive for Spike.
(2/3) Elegance: Mindslaver effects are inelegant by their very nature. Around a multiplayer table, multiple mindslaver effects are each, by their very nature, very inelegant.

Development -
(2.5/3) Viability: Mindslaver effects have definitively deemed to be Black (see Worst Fears), and I see no problem with the colors chosen for the mana cost of the Overload version. The chosen rarity of Mythic Rare for this card is absolutely perfect.
However, my fellow judge, Rocco, brings up a poignant viability concern. Where in the Multiverse could this card ever see actual print? Surely not a Standard-legal set. Commander is also likely not an option either due to this card not having the potential to exist as a commander despite existing as a Mythic Rare. Perhaps something akin to Conspiracy?
(1.5/3) Balance: As previously discussed, my fellow judges have deemed this card to be a worse Worst Fears. However, let us be honest, this card is not interested in Standard; this card is interested in multiplayer. Therefore, one should judge this card with multiplayer in mind, rather than the usual Standard and Modern.
In all honesty (and as a Spike myself this realization has terrified me), the overload cost on this card should either be eleven or twelve mana total. This is mainly because the option to target a single opponent around the table exists regardless and can still be game-winning all on its own.
Furthermore, since the majority of multiplayer formats are more casual and focused on the fun, I inevitably have to bring up just how unfun this effect is to play against. It is even worse that everyone else other than the caster may have to play against this effect. The cruelty of such effects was an important contributing factor as to why Emrakul, the Promised End was eventually banned from Standard.

Creativity -
(1.5/3) Uniqueness: Worst Fears meets Bolas.
(3/3) Flavor: Ever since my previous blunder this month, I have recently taken the time to read the entirety of the Amonkhet story and the Hour of Devastation story for the purposes of properly judging the rest of this month's contest that followed. Without doing so, I could not have given this card the perfect score for this criterion that I also believe that it rightfully deserves. My fellow judges have explained why this card deserves such better than I could. Otherwise, I shall refrain from spoilers.

Polish -
(2/3) Quality: Singular possessives ending in S sometimes receive another S after the apostrophe, but this can also be grammatically omitted (which I actually often do myself in my own writing).
In the first sentence of the rules text, "his or her" should surely be 'that player's' instead (minus half a point).
My fellow judge, Rocco, brought up an excellent point regarding the possibility of reminder text on this card. To elaborate, both Worst Fears and Mindslaver have reminder text, while Emrakul, the Promised End does not have reminder text for this effect. Mythic Rare cards can technically eschew reminder text at all times, but it seems far too weird to me that the reminder text for overload has been included here while the reminder text for the much more complicated effect of the two has not been included under these specific circumstances (minus half a point).
(2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge met!
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges met!

Total: 18.5/25
Final thoughts: While my fellow judges have disagreed as to whether or not this properly serves as a signature spell for Bolas, I am inclined to believe that it does meet the main challenge enough to merit both points for the criterion.

Quote from Jimmy Groove »

In Bolas' Claw 3UU
Enchantment - Aura (R)
Enchant creature
You control enchanted creature.
Sacrifice enchanted creature, BR: Enchanted creature deals damage equal to its power to it's owner. That player discards that many cards.
While searching your library, you may cast In Bolas' Claw if you control a Bolas planeswalker.
Those who oppose Bolas must be afraid even of their own allies, because none are safe from his influence.

Design -
(3/3) Appeal: Both Spike and Johnny love the toolbox of this card's rules text so much that Timmy's somewhat lukewarm opinion by comparison is honestly rather irrelevant.
(0/3) Elegance: While I personally like the difference between control and ownership being highlighted by this card (which also feels very Bolas), it does constitute an inelegance for many players.
This card's fourth line of rules text is heavy enough on the rules as to constitute a major inelegance, infamy aside.
Finally, this card seems as though it were stapled or mixed together out of other cards rather than mechanically connected or elegantly woven. Attributing as powerful of a flavor as Bolas's to a card can still only do so much to provide context.

Development -
(0.5/3) Viability: This card is definitely Blue, and the activated ability of this card is definitely Black and Red (and not Black or Red). However, this card surely should have been a Mythic Rare.
Furthermore, the total text of this card fills nine lines in all, which is not ideal and constitutes a minor viability concern. The flavor text would likely have to be cut down the line.
I also sincerely doubt that any card with the infamous rules text of Panglacial Wurm shall ever see official print ever again (and I do not mean the trample).
(0/3) Balance: Firstly, this card is a strictly better Mind Control with three upsides. Hence, I believe that this card has three upsides too many. Furthermore, the card itself is not just undercosted, but the activated ability is also undercosted. Admittedly, the fourth line of rules is often little more than mere trinket text, due to the two very specific conditions.
Truthfully, the nail-driving reminder that hit me personally relating to this card's balance, or lack thereof, was how truly miserable this card would be to play against, especially among casual players. Perhaps not quite on the levels of Worst Fears miserable, but miserable enough to play against that it would undermine the point of Magic, which is to be a fun game first and foremost.

Creativity -
(2.5/3) Uniqueness: There likely will only ever be one Panglacial Wurm, but I admit that this card is almost there in terms of uniqueness. Almost.
(1.5/3) Flavor: The card name is absolutely fantastic. The flavor text is completely unnecessary in all honesty, and it seems very forced as well.

Polish -
(0/3) Quality
(2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge met!
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges met!

Total: 11.5/25
Final thought: If you are interested in my reasonings for the quality score pertaining to this card, please feel free to send me a PM.

Quote from admirableadmiral »

Bolas's Treachery RR
Enchantment [R]
Whenever you gain control of a permanent from another player, Bolas's Treachery deals 3 damage to that player. You may sacrifice that permanent at the beginning of the next end step.
3RR: Gain control of target creature until end of turn. Untap it. It gains haste until end of turn. At the beginning of the next end step, sacrifice Bolas's Treachery. Activate this ability only any time you could cast a sorcery.

Design -
(1/3) Appeal: Timmy ends up disliking this card as it does nothing initially and only becomes exciting later but only for a single turn. Delayed gratifications that are temporary are not Timmy's favorites.
Johnny can definitely build a deck around this card.
Spike does not like the weighted mana cost nor the inherent predictability of this card.
(1.5/3) Elegance: Two delayed sacrifice effects put together lead to two minor inelegances. Two effects that affect the board state that both trigger 'at the beginning of the next end step', with the first being optional and the second being mandatory, lead to another minor quibble for me (although this may just be a personal pet peeve rather than anything of importance).

Development -
(2.5/3) Viability: This card checks a lot of boxes for Red. The rarity of Rare also seems correct.
However, this card possesses nine lines worth of rules text, which constitutes a minor viability concern.
(2/3) Balance: This card is not noteworthy regarding Limited, which Rares are allowed to be, so I shall focus this balance score primarily regarding Constructed.
The theoretical deck that would be constructed around this card actually seems fairly alright. Definitely not anything meta-defining, but for the time being supportable at the very least.
However, it should be noted that effects that change control are awfully unfun to play against, and this card is entirely based around an even harsher variant of that effect as well.

Creativity -
(3/3) Uniqueness: Simply put, 'Whenever you gain control of a permanent from another player' has never been used as a trigger for an ability before. Congratulations.
(2/3) Flavor: This card's name is quite serviceable. No room for flavor text.
The mechanical flavor presented here may well have fared better if this card did not sacrifice itself as part of its second ability (in fact, that actually does not seem like Bolas' style at all, to be perfectly honest).

Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Perfect!
(2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge met!
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges met!

Total: 19/25
Final thoughts: My one final thought on this card is that the mana cost is awfully weird. Truth be told, this is one of those weird cards where the cost of the activated ability matters a lot more than the actual mana cost.

Quote from willows »

Bolas' Monologue 3UU
Enchantment (R)
At the beginning of your upkeep, exile the top card of each opponent's library. Then, you may cast an instant or sorcery card exiled with Bolas' Monologue or a Bolas planeswalker and you may spend mana as though it were mana of any color to cast it.
"You see, I wanted you to do all those things. It was all a part of a greater plan…"
— Nicol Bolas

Design -
(1.5/3) Appeal: Timmy kind of likes this card as it can definitely create those memorable moments against one's opponent(s), but it can also end up disappointingly doing nothing.
Johnny somewhat likes this card as he would prefer to use his own deck to express himself, if possible, rather than an adversary's.
Spike is appealed to by this interesting sort of draw engine, yet it is also quite match-up dependent.
(3/3) Elegance: Perhaps Bolas' own monologues lack elegance (can we get to the bloody point already?), but this card of yours most certainly does not.

Development -
(2/3) Viability: This is an acceptable bend in Blue for various good reasons. I believe that a rarity of Rare for this card is also be correct.
However, this card is not without viability concerns. Firstly, as my fellow judges have also designated, this card's rules text should include the following pair of words 'you control' after the words "or a Bolas planeswalker". Otherwise, players might have to start tracking cards that were also never officially intended to be tracked, which becomes especially nightmarish should the corner cases involved ever come to pass. I also doubt that this change would meaningfully impact the power level of this card.
Secondly, as bravelion83 invaluably mentioned, this card's rules text should use the word 'type' in place of the word "color", since colorless mana is not a color of mana but is instead a type of mana. Perhaps a couple of examples might aid in explaining this particular concern. While there are no sorceries that use C in their mana cost, there are two instants that do (which also validates this viability concern significantly): Spatial Contortion and Warping Wail. With the word "color" instead of 'type', if you do not control a land (or other source of mana) that produces C, you could not cast either of these spells, despite how they would otherwise have been (for the sake of this thought experiment) exiled by this card (or a Bolas planeswalker) satisfactorily.
Both of the above viability concerns are minor ones. Admittedly, there is technically nothing wrong qualitatively with either of these quibbles.
(2.5/3) Balance: I suppose that this card is potentially playable in Limited, although I would be loathe to draft it (which speaks more about my specific Limited style of play than this specific card).
However, where this card truly shines is in Constructed, especially multiplayer. However, this card lacks the consistency to make much of anything competitive (especially when compared to Nicol Bolas, God-Pharaoh himself), but it does seem like quite a lot of casual fun...for yourself, anyway. Having an opponent's spells turned against them is not quite as unhealthful as taking control of an opponent's permanents, but it is somewhat unhealthful nonetheless. After much thought, that might be the only relevant balance problem that I have with this card in particular.

Creativity -
(2.5/3) Uniqueness: I honestly am not sure about this score; I only know that similar cards have been printed in the past but not that many. This feels original without being revolutionary.
(2.5/3) Flavor: The card name is functional; the flavor text is suitable (plus the emphasis is definitely welcome for livening it up). It is just that these mechanics are not quite the perfect fit for this rather specific flavor. Truthfully, the parts are all there for a perfect score, it is just that I would recommend some more fine-tuning here and there before then.

Polish -
(2/3) Quality: Singular possessives ending in S sometimes receive another S after the apostrophe, but this can also be grammatically omitted (which I actually often do myself in my own writing).
For the second sentence within the first (and only) line of rules text, the comma after the word "then" should be nixed (minus half a point).
There should be no space between the long dash and the name "Nicol Bolas" in the flavor text (minus half a point). Thank you for utilizing the correct long dash!
(2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge met!
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges met!

Total: 20/25
Final thoughts: As bad of a mechanic as fateseal is, it does synergize quite nicely with this one card in particular.
Also, bloody hells, this particular card of yours was quite the absolute pain for me to judge accurately, especially while fatigued from being under the weather. Nevertheless, no lasting harm has been done, thankfully!

willows — 20
admirableadmiral — 19
The_Hittite — 18.5
Jimmy Groove — 11.5

Quote from Raptorchan »

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 -
(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.

Quote from willows »

Buried Beneath the Sands 3B
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!

Quote from iphanx »

Banished into the Wastes W
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.

Quote from Jimmy Groove »

Remember Your Name 2UU
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.

Raptorchan — 17
willows — 20.5

iphanx — 15
Jimmy Groove — 16.5

Quote from admirableadmiral »

Scalding Sands 1RR
Enchantment [R]
At the beginning of each opponent's upkeep, put a -1/-1 counter on target creature that player controls.
2RR: Each creature with a -1/-1 counter on it deals 1 damage to its controller.
Expelled from their city, the people of Amonkhet faced challenges daily from every aspect of the environment.

Design -
(1.5/3) Appeal: Timmy likes this card quite a lot; it definitely feels like “scalding sands”. With other -1/-1 counters, the effect could potentially be huge!
Johnny agrees with Timmy; more -1/-1 counters will mean a bigger effect with this card, as well.
Spike is simply bored by this card. The second effect is too weak for spreading out the counters strategically to have any deeper meaning; it is a mana sink at best. Therefore, she defaults to the simplistic ‘nullify their best creature’ strategy that comes with cumulative -1/-1 counters.
(2.5/3) Elegance: A lot of -1/-1 counters could lead to a little arithmetic, but nothing too terribly inelegant.
The main woe would be that, with the activated ability, any creatures you control with -1/-1 counters will also deal damage to you as well. This inelegance reminds me of the shroud versus hexproof problem, which was a problem that became so rampant that Wizards of the Coast changed shroud into hexproof because of it.

Development -
(3/3) Viability: This is definitely red and is definitely a rare. Excellent!
(2/3) Balance: I believe that while the initial cost of this card is quite fine, the second ability is just simply too weak. Charitably, it can be used as a mana sink for those last points of burn damage. Uncharitably, it is trinket text that takes away from the rest of the enchantment altogether, development-wise.

Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: The first effect is far from being particularly unique, but the second effect definitely comes to help and save the day in this regard.
(2.5/3) Flavor: The flavor is pretty great; I just have one notable quibble. The main city of Amonkhet is called ‘Naktamun’, and it would make a lot more sense to reference Naktamun by name, at least in my honest opinion. Otherwise, the name is great, and the mechanics work together with the intended flavor nicely.

Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Perfect!
(2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge met!
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges met!

Total: 20.5/25
Final thought: Admirable work, admiral!

Quote from Conntroll »

Malice Recycling Machine 3
Artifact (R)
Whenever a creature an opponent controls dies, untap Malice Recycling Machine.
T, sacrifice a black creature: Put two -1/-1 counters on target creature an opponent controls.
The MRM: an elegant fusion between technology and disposable underlings, for the eco-conscious evil overlord.

Design -
(2/3) Appeal: First off, Tammy does not like this card; sacrificing her own creatures is not for her.
Jenny likes this card quite a bit; other ways of having her opponent’s creatures die allow her to repeat this effect until the opponent’s board is clear for whatever she wants to do.
Spike surely loves this card. It is very skill-intensive, and a deck with it should keep it in mind throughout the rest of the deck building process, let alone the game. Once it is on the battlefield, it has much in the way of nuance. If used poorly, this card can lose its controller the game. On the other hand, if used well, this card is a game winner.
(3/3) Elegance: I spot nothing here that would constitute an inelegance.

Development -
(1/3) Viability: Rare is likely the correct rarity for this card. Unfortunately, this rest of this card suffers from major viability problems. This card is useless outside of black, yet it is a colorless artifact. If it were a black enchantment, that viability problem would clear right up. Just as well, repeatable kill in the form of an engine like this generally quite unfun, especially for only three mana. 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?
(0/3) Balance: If not for being significantly under-costed, this card is incredibly oppressive and unfun to play against; it is still too strong without the first line of rules text, but tacking that on as well only pushes this card over the edge into what I would call a broken card.
Consider a multiplayer game with multiple opponents, and this card only gets worse in that regard. This card does not even have to kill anything to be effective at worst; it is an overly potent combo piece at best. Plus, both abilities are at instant speed!
Maybe a singular -1/-1 counter would have worked out better; I am honestly not sure.

Creativity -
(1/3) Uniqueness: Nothing that this card does is particularly unique, and there have been variants of this kind of card in the past. One of my personal favorites is an old card from Fifth Dawn of the first Mirrodin block called Blasting Station.
(0.5/3) Flavor: Malice is not something that I would call recyclable, so I fail to see the flavorful connection there. I suppose that it makes some sense that this machine can untap repeatedly. But, why only black creatures; why not any creature? Overall, I do not find the flavor of this card to be particularly professional.
The abbreviation in the flavor text is what I could call cute, though.

Polish -
(1.5/3) Quality: The second line of rules text possesses a capitalization error; “sacrifice” should be capitalized (minus half a point).
The other pair of quality errors are in the flavor text. Firstly, the colon “:” only ever goes after a complete sentence; “The MRM” is not a complete sentence without a predicate, for it is only a subject (minus half a point). Secondly, the comma after “underlings” and before “for” falsely hints that the latter is a conjunction rather than a preposition in this instance (minus half a point).
(2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge met!
(1.5/2) Subchallenges: Subchallenge 1 met!
As for Subchallenge 2, this card may not have a black color identity, but it is only playable if you control black creatures. Since it is almost completely benign without black creatures (outside of some shenanigan like artifact animation which I cannot say would be not worthwhile here), I cannot in good conscience award the full point to this card regarding the second subchallenge. It may have followed the letter of the subchallenge, but I heavily doubt that it followed the spirit of it.

Total: 12.5/25
Final thoughts: Trying to be clever to get that second subchallenge point is not worth breaking the color pie over. Nonetheless, I do sincerely hope that you participate in another MCC in the future!

Quote from Jimmy Groove »

Facing the Fanatics 1R
Enchantment (R)
Creatures opponents control get +3/+3.
At the beginning of your upkeep, put a -1/-1 counter on each creature an opponent controls.
"An enemy filled with fervor can strike like a demon, but that rage caused them to burn out in the end. Master your passions and manipulate those of your enemies, can you will control the tide of war. "
- Tismat, Warrior Monk

Design -
(1.5/3) Appeal: Simply put, Timmy loves this card because it is a very big and memorable effect.
Johnny likes this card because quite a few shenanigans are possible with it. As an example, he could play a bunch of defenders and stall the board forever and ever and ever...
Spike hates this card; not only can it be a very fast way to lose a game of Magic, but it requires absolutely no skill to use. Either it sometimes works, or it crashes and burns miserably.
(3/3) Elegance: I spot no inelegances here, but see Quality.

Development -
(3/3) Viability: This card is most certainly a Rare. I am not entirely sure if this card is solely Red, but I am not sure what other color could go with it if it were to be multicolor.
There is a potential viability concern with Wizards of the Coast ever printing a card anything like this, but I suppose that there is a world were such could happen.
(0/3) Balance: There is no world where this card is balanced. It is either very broken beyond belief, or absolutely and completely useless to the point of losing a game almost all on its own. Unfortunately, the lack of fairness within this card is almost the very definition of imbalance.
Notably, if the second ability had possessed a cost of some kind (likely a mana cost), this balance score would have gone up significantly.

Creativity -
(2.5/3) Uniqueness: You may think that a card that is merely a mass Consuming Fervor would not earn almost full points for this criterion. However, I cannot find a single card that buffs all an opponent’s creatures with a continuous +N/+N bonus. The closest cards that come to mind affect all players, such as Archangel of Strife or Crescendo of War. Therefore, I am basically obligated to award this card almost full uniqueness points.
(2/3) Flavor: The flavor of this card is great right up until the second half of the second sentence of the flavor text, which suffers from quality errors that significantly detract from the rest of this card’s flavor.

Polish -
(1/3) Quality: The first line of rules text is missing the word ‘your’ in-between “creatures” and “opponents” (minus half a point).
The flavor text has more quality errors: “can you will control the tide of war” is a bit of a nonsense clause (minus half a point). There are two unnecessary spaces in the flavor text that are both out of place, one after each sentence of the flavor text (minus half a point). Lastly, there should not be a space between the dash (which should be a long dash ‘—‘) and the name “Tismat” (minus half a point).
(2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge met!
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges met!

Total: 17/25
Final thought: To be fair, I found that this card had a surprising amount of potential for budding from such a niche idea.

Quote from Sub_Silentio »

Poison-Toed Frog 1GG
Creature – Frog (U)
When Poison-Toed Frog enters the battlefield, put two -1/-1 counters on target creature you control.
When Poison-Toed Frog dies, you may distribute a number of -1/-1 counters equal to the number of -1/-1 counters on Poison-Toed Frog among any number of target creatures your opponents control.
3/4
“If handled properly, this little cutie can make even your largest enemy croak.” – Hapatra, Vizier of Poisons

Design -
(1.5/3) Appeal: All the player psychographics like this card because of the second line of rules text, which can lead to quite a big, rewarding, and tactical effect if more than four -1/-1 counters somehow end up on the creature (which is not hard to do in the Amonkhet block).
(2/3) Elegance: The primary inelegance of this card is that its total text makes up a total of nine lines, which is too many for most Magic cards, let alone an Uncommon.

Development -
(2/3) Viability: This card is obviously a Black card trying to masquerade with a Green mana cost in order to pass the second subchallenge. My apologies.
The rarity of Uncommon is appropriate for this card.
(3/3) Balance: This card is actually just Soulstinger’s cousin once-removed. For the record, Soulstinger was a completely fine card. Little else needs to be mentioned as a result.

Creativity -
(1/3) Uniqueness: The first line of rules text would have been unique if not for Amonkhet. Soulstinger, Ornery Kudu, and so forth serve as enough precedent to prevent this card from being unique. The only reason that the score for this criterion is not a mere half a point is because of the counters being distributed among multiple targets, which is vaguely unique enough.
(1/3) Flavor: The name of this card is alright; it does its job and nothing more. The flavor and the mechanics of this card mesh well enough. However, the flavor text is unprofessional; this quote that has been credited to Hapatra is not at all within her character as a person. With that said, I find the pun of this flavor text to be cringe-inducing, and that is not a good feeling for the flavor of a Magic card.

Polish -
(1/3) Quality: These quality errors are all in regards to this card’s flavor text.
Firstly, the flavor text should be before the power and toughness, not after it (minus half a point). Secondly, the word “croak” should not be bolded or italicized to express emphasis (see cards with emphasized words within their flavor text such as Sizzle, minus half a point). Thirdly, the accreditation for the quotation should have its own third line of flavor text (minus half a point). Fourthly, there should be a no space between the dash (which should be a long dash ‘—‘) and the name “Hapatra” (minus half a point).
(1.5/2) Main Challenge: According to this month’s host, bravelion83, this card fails to meet the main challenge in its entirety.
However, I believe that your card otherwise meets the full spirit of the main challenge, disregarding the exact letter of it (therefore it is an acceptable bend). As a result, I have decided that your card is not subject to disqualification. This was not an easy decision.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges met!

Total: 15/25
Final thought: What ultimately brought down this card was not the bending with respect to the main challenge (however risky). The downfall of this card can be attributed to a lack of serious flavor and serious proofreading. Nevertheless, I do hope that you continue to participate in the MCC during the months to come in the future!

admirableadmiral – 20.5
Jimmy Groove – 17
Sub_Silentio – 15
Conntroll – 12.5

If your username has been bolded here, congratulations are in order — you have qualified for Round 3 of the July MCC! Best of luck!
If your username has not been bolded here, there is always next month. Thank you for competing; best of luck next month!

Quote from IcariiFA »

Triumphant of Guile 1U
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.

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.

Quote from LnGrrrR »

Relentless Warrior 2RR
Creature - Minotaur Warrior (Common)
When Relentless Warior enters the battlefield, deal 2 damage to target creature.
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 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 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.

Quote from mirrodin71 »

The Dark Soul BB
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.

Quote from Necarg »

Thoughtless Fighter 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

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.

Quote from netn10 »

Bloodthirsty Worthy B
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!

Quote from The_Hittite »

Scourge of the Unworthy BB
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.

Quote from void_nothing »

Lazotep Monolith 4RR
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 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?

netn10 — 20
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!

Quote from IcariiFA »

Sword of the True Ruler 5
Legendary Artifact - Equipment (M)
Whenever you attach Sword of the True Ruler to a creature you control, you become the monarch.
Equipped creature gets +3/+3 and has vigilance and protection from nonmonarchs. (This creature can't be blocked, targeted, dealt damage, or enchanted by anything controlled by a player who isn't the monarch.)
Equip 5

Design -
(3/3) Appeal: This is a Timmy mythic through and through and through. Perhaps that is just a bit of an understatement.
Johnny can surely build around this with cards that care about equipment.
This is a possible, if situational, curve topper for Spike in the right deck. She does not hate it, but it does not necessarily appeal to her, either. It asks for a lot of mana yet it may actually be game-winning enough to be worth it.
(2.5/3) Elegance: Admittedly, there are only two lines of rules text here. Yet, the rulings can become just a little tedious whenever this equipment is equipped to a creature you control while you are not the monarch. A creature having protection from its own controller is inherently inelegant, and protection was never the most elegant keyword to begin with. Thank goodness for the accompanying reminder text, though.

Development -
(2.5/3) Viability: This equipment is fine existing as a colorless card, although white mana would theoretically have been nice, even if only for flavor reasons. Still, such is possible at a rarity of Mythic Rare. Fortunately, the rarity here is still well-placed.
The one, albeit minor, relevant concern that I have for this card is the protection ability. Protection is a mechanic that Wizards seems to be phasing out more and more over time at this current juncture. As a result,
(2.5/3) Balance: This card may be just a smidge overcosted, but I would much rather this card be overcosted rather than undercosted. This protection ability is very powerful, especially when it is accompanied by extra power and extra toughness along with vigilance. Not to mention that it also continuously accrues card advantage over time. Still, for ten mana, even my inner Spike wonders how I am ever going to actually play this other than in Conspiracy. Though, this is still the sort of card that demands an answer in response.
All said and done, this is the balance score that I believe that I can give this card in good conscience.

Creativity -
(3/3) Uniqueness: The phrase "protection from nonmonarchs" is worthy of full points for this criterion alone.
(2.5/3) Flavor: The name is superb, despite the lack of flavor text. However, these mechanics alone are great at communicating this card's flavor. Hence, here is an almost perfect score in this regard.

Polish -
(2.5/3) Quality: The first half of the first line of the rules text should be replaced with "Whenever Sword of the True Ruler becomes attached to a creature you control," (minus half a point).
(2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge met!
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges met!

Total: 22.5/25
Final thought: So, how exactly did Excalibur end up on Kaladesh, again?

Quote from Necarg »

Iron Preserver 6
Legendary Artifact (M)
Permanents you control have hexproof and indestructible.
Permanents you control don't untap during your untap step.
Pay 5 life: Exile Iron Preserver. Return it to the battlefield at the beginning of your next upkeep. Activate this ability only as a sorcery before combat.
To preserve, or to innovate is always the question at hand.

Design -
(1/3) Appeal: Tammy likes the first line of rules text, yet that is unfortunately cancelled out by a dislike of both the second and the third lines of rules text.
Spike feels that this card is too restrictive to do much of anything particularly for useful. For five mana, adding a decent power and toughness would have been nice at the very least.
No, this is a Jenny card. Is it a worthwhile build-around card? Maybe? Is it a worthwhile building block, at least? Mayhaps? Is it total rubbish? Perhaps? Who knows!
(2/3) Elegance: This card significantly changes how your side of the board plays out, yet it also turns on and off in the process of doing so. The inelegance of the third line of rules text unfortunately adds insult to the injury of tracking complexity.

Development -
(2.5/3) Viability: Paying life on a colorless card is a little strange, but that it only a minor color pie quibble. Otherwise, the rarity of Mythic Rare is indeed appropriate.
(1/3) Balance: This card is either completely useless or completely game-breaking. If one does not build around it, it is overcosted when one could have had a gearhulk or a titan for the same rarity and converted mana cost. Moreover, if one does build around it, one's own board state ceases to be meaningfully interactive for the opponent.
The restriction on the third line of rules text goes a long way, but only so far in keeping this card in check. It is what prevented this card's balance score from simply being a zero, yet it seems to have cost more points elsewhere for this judgment. My apologies.

Creativity -
(1.5/3) Uniqueness: Simply put, this is a new card built out of old and somewhat familiar pieces mashed up together.
(2/3) Flavor: I like the name of this card, yet I am lukewarm about this flavor text. This card is very mechanically complex; simplistic flavor falls short here of having this card make flavorful sense for myself as a Vorthos.

Polish -
(1.5/3) Quality: The last sentence of the third line of rules text is qualitatively incorrect. My current best attempt at rewriting would be "Activate this ability only any time you could cast a sorcery and only during your precombat main phase." (minus one point).
Also, the comma in this card's flavor text is unnecessary and ungrammatical (minus half a point).
(2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge met!
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges met!

Total: 15.5/25
Final thoughts: I cannot help yet think of the historical Iron Age when reading this card's name. What about "Bronze Preserver" or "Stone Preserver"?

Quote from Tilwin »

Aether Reactor 4
Artifact (M)
Artifact creatures you control get +1/+1 for each charge counter on Aether Reactor.
Pay EE: Add 1 to your mana pool. Spend this mana only to cast artifact spells or activate abilities of artifacts.
Pay EEEE: Put a charge counter on Aether Reactor.
2, T: You get EEEE (four energy counters).
"Aether is pure energy. Succeed in materializing that energy and the possibilities are infinite."
— Galvanius, Renegade Inventor

Design -
(2/3) Appeal: Timmy kind of likes this card. Spike somewhat likes this card as well.
This is more of a Johnny card otherwise because it is one of those cards to specifically build around; in this case, with both energy and artifact creatures. He could definitely build something with this as a center piece.
(2/3) Elegance: This is the exact sort of card that could have been significantly improved in terms of elegance by splitting into two (or possibly three) separate card concepts. The pieces that make up this card are not necessarily inelegant by themselves, yet the sum total of all of those pieces ends up being inelegant with too many lines of text trying to all fit onto the card.

Development -
(2/3) Viability: This artifact is viably colorless without uncertainty.
However, this card's rarity seems to misappropriated to me; there is nothing about this artifact that is Mythic Rare except for its power level. (See Balance.)
For the record, I believe that these individual effects could all exist at Rare or perhaps even Uncommon.
(0/3) Balance: I am of the opinion that this is one of those cards that just does far too much for too little mana.
Even if it is only once per turn, a continuous generator of four energy counters for two generic mana on only a four mana artifact carelessly breaks the careful balance of the energy economy. Being able to convert energy back into mana as an energy sink also allows for imbalanced shenanigans like ramping out gearhulks or other large artifact creatures. Then, this card can also serve as a game-ending anthem if need be for a wide army of servos, thopters, and the like.

Creativity -
(3/3) Uniqueness: No card has yet mixed charge counters and energy counters together. This criterion is definitely this card's strong suit.
(2.5/3) Flavor: The name of this card is alright; the flavor text of this card is nice.
The main qualm that I have with this card's intended flavor is that it suffers from the same problem as its intended design does. That is to say, the flavor of this card also falls short of combining the two (or more) separate card ideas here together into one unified card.

Polish -
(1/3) Quality: The fourth line of rules text should instead be the second line of rules text, directly underneath the first line of rules text (how a card accrues energy counters always goes before how it could spend them, see Consulate Turret, Aether Hub, et cetera; minus half a point).
There is an unnecessary space between the long dash and the name 'Galvanius' (minus half a point). Furthermore, the second line of flavor text should definitely be italicized in order to keep it meaningfully differentiated from actual rules text (minus one point).
(2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge met!
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges met!

Total: 16.5/25
Final thoughts: If I were to choose one of these two halves of this card to build a mythic rare artifact card upon, I would have gone with the anthem effect. There is a way to create a mythic rare with that serving as a building block. Not so much the mana to energy and back again conversions.

Quote from willows »

Gigamagnus Shell 5
Artifact — Equipment (M)
Equipped creature gets +X/+X and has trample, where X is the number of energy counters you have.
Whenever an artifact is put into a graveyard from the battlefield, you get E.
Miniaturizing the aether refinery was just the first step.
Equip 5

Design -
(2.5/3) Appeal: Timmy loves this card. Simply put, giant power and toughness buff plus trample is big.
Johnny can use this as a building block or maybe even a build around card for the right deck.
Spike finds this card to be overcosted for her needs.
(2.5/3) Elegance: Only two lines of rules text, but counting up the number of energy counters that one has can become really tedious really quickly once one has a double digit number of energy counters or so. Especially since the number of energy counters that one has can possibly change at instant speed while in combat.

Development -
(2/3) Viability: This colorless equipment is fine, color-wise. The viability problem here is that this card could almost certainly exist just fine as a Rare card.
(1.5/3) Balance: This card is doubtlessly overcosted. Though, it is weird to exactly gauge by just how much. It discourages one from actually spending the energy that one accrues as well, which also has to be factored in as a part of this card's cost. The amount of energy that this card passively generates is rarely, if ever, going to make up for the amount of energy that has to be withheld for this equipment to start being worthwhile to equip onto a creature. I am honestly hedging with this score; it is one of those cards that I would have to play with to be able to better tell just how overcosted it actually is.

Creativity -
(3/3) Uniqueness: Payoffs that count the number of unspent energy counters that one currently possesses has never been done before on an official card. Maybe such never will be done.
(1/3) Flavor: I dislike the name of this card; the flavor text is interesting.
I feel as though I can only imagine what this card's art would actually look like. The mechanics make more sense than the flavor for this card. Simply put, the flavor of this card feels very incomplete and disjointed; it takes creative leaps for a Vorthos like myself to figure out as to what could possibly be going on in there. Is it a reactor? Is it a recycler? Is it a piece of artillery? Is it a suit of power armor?

Polish -
(1.5/3) Quality: The reminder text (an energy counter) which belongs after E is missing (minus half a point).
The flavor text should be underneath the rules text rather than in the middle of it (minus one point).
(2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge met!
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges met!

Total: 18/25
Final thoughts: Two equipment in the same final round that each cost five, while each having an equip cost of five. Coincidence?

IcariiFA — 22.5
willows — 18
Tilwin — 16.5
Necarg — 15.5

Quote from netn10 »

Overdrive to Work 1R
Enchantment (Rare)
At the beginning of your upkeep, you may put an artifact card from your hand onto the battlefield. If you do, sacrifice it.
Revolt - 3RR: Return target artifact card from your graveyard to the battlefield. Activate this ability only if a permanent you controlled left the battlefield this turn.
Learning from mistakes is important, but it's way less fun than watching things explode again and again.

Design -
(2/3) Appeal: Timmy dislikes this card; he would much rather play the cards in his hand rather than cheat them out only to sacrifice them.
Fortunately, both Johnny and Spike would prefer the latter rather than the former. Johnny can use such tricks to pull off unique shenanigans; Spike can use such tricks to win the actual game.
(3/3) Elegance: No inelegances here.

Development -
(2/3) Viability: The revolt ability is not mechanically red at this time. This unfortunately results in an unnecessary color break. Also, I am not sure if recursively returning artifacts from the graveyard to the battlefield is particularly red, either.
However, the rarity of this card is more appropriate.
(0/3) Balance: My fellow judge, admirableadmiral, put it better than I think that I could at this time. My apologies.

Creativity -
(3/3) Uniqueness: The first line of this card fetches full points for this criterion all by itself. Also, there are no official cards with activated revolt abilities, so that alone would also score full points for this criterion all by itself as well. Clearly, this criterion is definitely this particular card's strength.
(1/3) Flavor: I dislike the name; I dislike the flavor text somewhat less. At least the mechanics and flavor do go together rather nicely, which is somewhat surprising.

Polish -
(2.5/3) Quality: The dash (which should be a long dash '—') after the revolt ability word should not be italicized (minus half a point).
(2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge met!
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges met!

Total: 17.5/25
Final thought: So, I heard that a certain Magic: the Gathering designer by the name of Mark Rosewater hosts this podcast called 'Drive to Work'...

Quote from Tilwin »

Galvanius, Partisan Tactician 2RW
Legendary Creature - Dwarf Soldier (R)
Double strike, haste
1W: Exile another target attacking creature you control. Return that card to the battlefield under its owner's control at the beginning of the next end step.
Revolt - At the end of the first combat phase of your turn, if a permanent you controlled left the battlefield this turn, untap all creatures you control. After this phase, there is an additional combat phase.
2/3

Design -
(2.5/3) Appeal: Timmy kind of likes this card, primarily because of the very big effect on the game state that an additional combat phase tends to provide.
This card is something that Johnny would also like, even if it is a little straightforward for his tastes.
Simply put, Spike enjoys this powerful (and pushed) card. Making the most out of not just one combat phase, let alone two of them, can be a pretty skillful endeavor.
(2/3) Elegance: This card has a little too much going on in order to be considered perfectly elegant. There are also at least a couple rules issues with this card as well. The end of combat step occurs after damage is dealt, which means that Galvanius has to survive combat in order to for his revolt ability to actually trigger. Somewhat unintuitively, one also cannot deal damage and also be flickered with Galvanius' activated ability during the same combat phase.

Development -
(1.5/3) Viability: Mechanically, revolt is not an ability word within red. Fortunately, it is within white's mechanics, constituting a bend rather than a break.
This card's rarity has also been misappropriated; it is far worthier of being mythic than being rare.
(0/3) Balance: This card is incredibly undercosted (by at least 2), regardless of being multicolored. This card also has a rather generous power and toughness from being a four mana hasty double striker. This card also has a rather nice activated ability.
Despite being legendary, this card simply does too much for too cheap of a mana cost.

Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: Lightning Runner was printed in Aether Revolt, and that card is unfortunately a lot like this card. Regardless, this card is still above-average in respects to this criterion.
(2/3) Flavor: No flavor text, even though there was room for about one line of it. Although, the card is pretty stuffed with rules text as-is in all honesty.
The name seems somewhat unrealistic due to it being somewhat of a mouthful to say aloud. Surely there could exist a shorter and better card name to communicate this legendary creature's concept properly.
All that said, he does seem both partisan and tactical at the same time flavorfully and mechanically, so that is a plus.

Polish -
(2.5/3) Quality: Regrettably, this card's name is too long to properly fit on the name plate of an actual Magic card (minus half a point). In addition, the dash next to the revolt ability word should be a long dash '—' and not a short dash.
(2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge met!
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges met!

Total: 16.5/25

Quote from IcariiFA »

Uninhibited Production 2BB
Enchantment (R)
At the beginning of your upkeep, you may sacrifice an artifact or creature. If you do, draw 2 cards and lose 2 life.
Revolt - If a permanent you controlled left the battlefield this turn, artifact and creature spells you cast cost 1 less.
To match the Consulate forces some rebels relied on extreme methods.

Design -
(2.5/3) Appeal: Timmy dislikes this card. Simply put, he never likes sacrificing his permanents, and paying life is not typically within his interests either. I do not think that the effective ramp would be able to make the difference for him, unfortunately.
Johnny likes this card very much as a both a card draw engine and as a decent form of cost reduction to play around with as well.
For Spikes who like to play black (I am a Spike yet I dislike playing black, unfortunately) this card is, well, as bravelion83 put it, tailor-made. To say that it would be appealing in that case is an understatement.
(3/3) Elegance: Neither inhibitions nor inelegances plague this card here.

Development -
(3/3) Viability: This card fits quite nicely into black on the color wheel. The rarity of rare is also quite nicely chosen here.
(2/3) Balance: This card is definitely pushed. I would call drawing one card and losing 1 life plus the revolt ability reasonable at that mana cost. Doubling up on the card draw pushed this card past 'reasonably balanced' for me, personally. Hopefully a card such as this would be able to see Standard play of some sort. Obviously it would see play in Limited.
The other qualm that I have with this card in regards to this criterion is just how oppressive the additive card advantage could end up being. Thankfully, abusing this card draw could also make one vulnerable to outright dying to random burn or unfavorable combat.

Creativity -
(3/3) Uniqueness: There are no official cards with static revolt abilities, so that alone should score full uniqueness points here. The actual revolt ability definitely helps to reassure that as well too.
(2/3) Flavor: Both the name and the flavor text on this card are unimpressive yet definitely servicable. This card's mechanics communicate its flavors more than anything else here, which is not a bad thing by any means.

Polish -
(0.5/3) Quality: The second sentence of the first line of rules text should be rewritten like this "If you do, you draw two cards and you lose 2 life." (minus one and a half points; this is very well known).
In regards to the second line of rules text, the dash next to the revolt ability word should be a long dash '—' and not a short dash. Also, since the revolt ability is clearly intended to be a static ability, the word 'if' should be replaced with the phrase "as long as" (minus half a point). Finally, the words "to cast" are missing at the end of the second sentence of the second line of rules text (minus half a point).
(2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge met!
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges met!

Total: 20/25

Quote from Vertain »

Saheeli's Revolution 1RR
Enchantment (R)
Revolt — At the beginning of your postcombat main phase, if a permanent you controlled left the battlefield this turn, exile the top card of your library. Until end of turn, you may play that card.
U: Return target attacking creature you control to its owner's hand.
Saheeli's creativity knows no obstacles, only challenges.

Design -
(2/3) Appeal: Timmy is bored by this indirectly ineffectual card.
On the other hand, both Johnny and Spike both find this card to be nicely effective. It (potentially) generates card advantage and it also fiddles with combat in a way that is indeed helpful to both players.
(3/3) Elegance: No inelegances here.

Development -
(2/3) Viability: Revolt is not an ability word within red's mechanics. As a result, this card cannot be red at this time without resulting in a color break.
The rarity of this card is just fine.
(2/3) Balance: Without access to blue mana, this card is overcosted to the point of being barely playable. With access to blue mana, this card quickly becomes very good.
There are two main reasons as to why I am not inclined to give this card a perfect balance score. Firstly, I think that its mana cost is too heavy in requiring two red mana instead of one. Secondly, I think that the card is just too weak to be a rare worth playing without blue mana, and only becomes a good card with blue mana.
Costing this card at 2R instead would go a ways towards solving both issues to the necessary extent. Perhaps the cost of the activated ability would need to be increased to compensate (maybe to 1U) but such mana cost rebalancing would make the difference between this score and a perfect (or at least near-perfect) score for this criterion in my honest opinion.

Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: This card is definitely above-average in uniqueness when meshed together but these are all effects that have been done before otherwise. Impulsive draw has since ceased to be unique on its own, and blue has been returning creatures to hands since the beginning of Magic.
(3/3) Flavor: The strength of this submission is that the flavor of this card is very good. There is definite tie-in thematically with both Pia's Revolution and Chandra's Revolution. Aside from just the name and the flavor text, basically every element of this card is flavorfully cohesive.

Polish -
(2.5/3) Quality: The card name should be bolded (minus half a point).
(2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge met!
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges met!

Total: 20.5/25
Final thought: Whose revolution is next? Kari Zev's?

netn10 — 17.5
Tilwin — 16.5

IcariiFA — 20
Vertain — 20.5

Quote from Hellgrammite »

Nightmare in the Machine XUB
Instant (R)
Improvise (Your artifacts can help cast this spell. Each artifact you tap after you're done activating mana abilities pays for 1.)
Target opponent exiles the top X cards of his or her library. Create a token that is a copy of a creature card among the exiled, except it has protection from that opponent and is an artifact in addition to its other types.
"I don't know your greatest fear, but I know one of them, and building it into a machine programmed to kill you is good enough for me."
-Noz Banin

Design -
(1/3) Appeal: Timmy kind of likes this card; this card can potentially have a very big, random effect.
Johnny also kind of likes this card, yet it is a little unwieldy to meaningfully build around.
Spike dislikes this card. While it is circumstantially game-breaking, it would be a stretch to say that this card does so skillfully.
(2/3) Elegance: Make no mistake, this is card is inelegantly complicated; it could potentially have memory issues as well. To put it mildly, neither protection nor token copies of nontokens have ever been particularly elegant effects. (Also, see Quality.)

Development -
(1/3) Viability: The effect of this card is primarily blue, but it could also be black and blue.
The two main problems that this card suffers in regards to this particular criterion are a misappropriated rarity (this card should be mythic rare) and that protection is no longer an evergreen ability. Tangentially, after the banning of Emrakul, the Promised End, I am unsure as to when another official card with protection may see the light of day.
(0/3) Balance: This card is definitely unbalanced. Regardless of this card certainly being under-costed, there are plenty of effects which allow one to circumvent the randomness that this card presents. As just one example, at instant speed, one could combine Griptide (or similar) with this card for both removal and a shiny new creature. With protection and artifact synergy.
Any format, sanctioned or otherwise, which is slow enough for such an effect to be reliably playable could potentially suffer due to the existence of this card were it to be official. I apologize.

Creativity -
(2.5/3) Uniqueness: This card is True-Name Nemesis plus Villainous Wealth, powered by mill and improvise with other potential artifact synergy. Despite this, the card certainly does look unique when blended together.
(2.5/3) Flavor: This card is certainly flavorful, taking away an opponent's creature in order to turn it into something frighteningly nightmarish (and metallic). Although, just who is 'Noz Banin'?

Polish -
(0/3) Quality: I sincerely apologize, but there is no way to salvage the second line of rules text without almost completely rewriting it. I would rewrite it like this:
'Target opponent exiles the top X cards of his or her library. Choose a creature card exiled this way. Create a token that's a copy of it, except it's an artifact in addition to its other types. It gains protection from that opponent. (That creature can't be blocked, targeted, dealt damage, or enchanted by anything controlled by that opponent.)'
(2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge met!
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges met!

Total: 13/25
Final thoughts: I thought that Kaladesh was a steampunk plane, not a cyberpunk plane. So, would programming actually be an activity that could actually take place on Kaladesh?

Quote from Indighost »

Expulsion Bomb xxWB
Sorcery (R)
Improvise (Your artifacts can help cast this spell. Each artifact you tap after you're done activating mana abilities pays for 1.)
Exile X target nonland permanents.
"I think I've figured out Rashmi's teleportation theory. Well mostly the going away part, less of the coming back bit." Danin, Renegade Mechanic

Design -
(2.5/3) Appeal: Timmy definitely likes a card with double X in the mana cost that has such a big effect.
Johnny is disinterested by this short card.
Spike is surely appealed to by this pushed card that can potentially win games plus a little improvisation.
(3/3) Elegance: Six words of rules text!

Development -
(3/3) Viability: This card is in color and the rarity is correct.
(2/3) Balance: Without improvise, this card would be perfectly balanced. With improvise, this card is pushed, but not broken thanks to the fact that improvise cannot pay for colored mana costs. Maybe there is a certain Standard deck that could potentially want this card...(can anyone say Mardu vehicles?)

Creativity -
(1.5/3) Uniqueness: There has never been a card with a mana cost of XXWB. Other than that, this card has tread no new ground.
(1.5/3) Flavor: The flavor of this card feels somewhat unprofessional. The flavor text is not particularly well-written; the name does not work together with the flavor text. However, this card definitely has enough discernible flavor to have merit regardless.
Also, just who is Danin, again?

Polish -
(2/3) Quality: There should be a long dash '—' just to the left of 'Danin, Renegade Mechanic' (minus half a point). The phrase in question should also exist as its own line of flavor text underneath the quotation (minus half a point).
(2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge met!
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges met!

Total: 19.5/25
Final thoughts: I like simple cards such as these. They tend to score well, and are not too terribly time-consuming to judge!

Quote from StonerOfKruphix »

Airborne Aid XGU
Instant (R)
Improvise (Your artifacts can help cast this spell. Each artifact you tap after you're done activating mana abilities pays for 1.)
Create a 1/1 colorless Thopter artifact creature token with flying, then distribute X +1/+1 counters among any number of target creatures you control.
Greenwheel lifecrafters showed their support to the revolt in the only way they knew: by creating life.

Design -
(2.5/3) Appeal: Timmy definitely likes big effects such as these, hardly any questions asked.
Johnny likes this card. Not worth building around, but this sort of card could definitely be useful as a building block.
Spike likes this card quite a bit but it is not very good if one is behind on the board. It is still an excellent combat trick, especially when blocking, though.
(2/3) Elegance: This card looks perfectly elegant until one realizes that the timing of this card's effects are off. Because of the word 'target', one cannot put the +1/+1 counters on the actual Thopter, which is not intuitive. If the word 'target' were absent, one would be able to do so.

Development -
(3/3) Viability: This card is appropriately in-color and the rarity is appropriate.
(3/3) Balance: This card would be just a little bit pushed if not for the timing mismatch. (See Elegance.)
As-is, this card is well-balanced. It is not very good when one is behind on the board, yet it can be game-winning if one is ahead on the board, especially when blocking instead of attacking.

Creativity -
(1.5/3) Uniqueness: Distributing X +1/+1 counters among any number of creatures for X is surprisingly unexplored design space.
(3/3) Flavor: This card is very, very flavorful.

Polish -
(3/3) Quality: No qualitative errors here.
(2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge met!
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges met!

Total: 22/25
Final thoughts: It is interesting how one seemingly inconsequential little word can potentially make a rather big difference. This is still a very nice card, though.

Quote from void_nothing »

Present Arms 2W
Instant (U)
Improvise (Your artifacts can help cast this spell. Each artifact you tap after you're done activating mana abilities pays for 1.)
Put a +1/+1 counter on target creature you control. That creature gains first strike until end of turn. Attach up to one target Equipment you control to it.
"How's my new blade strike you?"

Design -
(1/3) Appeal: This effect is too small for Timmy to care about.
Attaching an equipment at instant speed for a low mana cost might appeal to Johnny for something.
Spike is one to like a nice combat trick such as this one.
(3/3) Elegance: Presently elegant!

Development -
(3/3) Viability: This card is perfectly in-color and the rarity is also perfectly chosen.
(3/3) Balance: This card is a perfectly fine combat trick without any equipment; it is a much better combat trick with equipment.
This card is too innocently simple to cause anything in particular to become unbalanced.

Creativity -
(1/3) Uniqueness: Simple cards tend to find themselves wanting in uniqueness. Attaching equipment at instant speed still has unexplored design space nonetheless.
(2/3) Flavor: I am not a fan of the card name but I am quite the fan of the flavor text. I am always a fan of well-done wordplay and lightheartedness.

Polish -
(3/3) Quality: Well done.
(2/2) Main Challenge: Main challenge met!
(2/2) Subchallenges: Both subchallenges met!

Total: 20/25
Final thought: You could say that this card has a point to make.

StonerOfKruphix – 22
void_nothing – 20
Indighost – 19.5
Hellgrammite – 13

If your username has been bolded here, congratulations are in order — you have qualified for Round 3 of the February MCC! Best of luck!
If your username has not been bolded here, there is always next month. Thank you for competing; best of luck next month!