I am of the opinion that the graveyard is a resource, and a very important one. I don't see why graveyard denial should be excluded here. Also, it seems strange to me to call Moonhold resource denial - it's costing the opponent time, I guess, but at that point is Time Warp a resource denial spell? I usually think of resources as things that endure until they're used, rather than transient advantage.
Design Appeal (X/3): Do the different player psychographics (Timmy/Johhny/Spike) have a use for the card? Does it create or fit into a deck/archetype? Elegance (X/3): Are the concepts of the card easily understood at a glance? Do all the flavor and mechanics combined as a whole make sense?
Development Viability (X/3): 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? Balance (X/3): 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 fun play experiences?
Creativity Uniqueness (X/3): 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"? Flavor (X/3): 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 Quality (X/3): Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating. Main Challenge (X/2): Points deducted if the card does not meet the main challenge or only partially meets the main challenge. Sub Challenges (X/2): One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Onur, the Mind Nexus1UU
Legendary Creature - Vedalken (M) 2,T: Put a nexus counter on target creature.
Creatures with nexus counters get +1/+1 for each other creature with a nexus counter.
Creatures with nexus counters have the activated abilities of other creatures with nexus counters.
Design Appeal (1.5/3): Do the different player psychographics (Timmy/Johhny/Spike) have a use for the card? Does it create or fit into a deck/archetype?
This is a Johnny card through and through. Spike's unlikely to enjoy having to spend seven mana and three turns before she sees a payoff, and Timmy is rarely excited by three mana creatures, although the possibility of a full board of creatures all buffing each other may be nice. I don't really see this going in any particular deck or archetype, and it's unlikely to take off in constructed simply because of the mana and time investments required, but in EDH it may allow for shenanigans similar to those seen with Experiment Kraj. Elegance (2.5/3): Are the concepts of the card easily understood at a glance? Do all the flavor and mechanics combined as a whole make sense?
This card seems to be building a mind nexus out of a bunch of creatures, reinforcing them all with the powers of the others. Which is great, except... why doesn't Onur enter with a nexus counter? You lose a bit there, but otherwise this holds up well.
Development Viability (2.5/3): 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?
The mass buffing is slightly bleedy in blue, and the flavour also suggests blue-white - building a telepathic nexus for cooperation feels very blue/white. Still, this is viable in mono-blue. Definitely a mythic. Balance (2/3): 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 fun play experiences?
Assuming that the body is irrelevant, this card is unlikely to matter in Standard or in conventional eternal formats. In Limited it may be playable, depending on the size of the body and the speed of the format, simply as a mass buff, but barring unusual archetypes is unlikely to be a first pick. In EDH this will shine, seeing play in a lot of blue decks and encouraging political plays in a way that I really love.
Creativity Uniqueness (2.5/3): 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"?
Granting activated abilities in this way is not something that's been done before, although sharing activated abilities is established technology. The buff that scales with the creatures being buffed is also new. Flavor (2.5/3): 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?
This makes perfect sense flavourwise, the name and mechanics combining pleasantly. Evocative and straightforward.
Polish Quality (1.5/3): Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
Power and toughness are missing (-1.5 points). Main Challenge (2/2): Points deducted if the card does not meet the main challenge or only partially meets the main challenge. Sub Challenges (2/2): One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Ghostfire Ascendancy
Legendary Enchantment (M)
Face down creatures you control are Dragon creatures with flying and base power and toughness 4/4. : Manifest a card from your hand. Activate this ability only any time you could cast a sorcery. (To manifest a card, put it onto the battlefield face down as a 2/2 creature. Turn it face up at any time for its mana cost if it's a creature card.)
Design Appeal (1.5/3): Do the different player psychographics (Timmy/Johhny/Spike) have a use for the card? Does it create or fit into a deck/archetype?
Spike doesn't like spending six mana on an enchantment before she sees any payoff. Timmy appreciates all the dragons, but is most likely looking for something a little bigger than 4/4 - still, lots of 4/4s will make his day. Johnny likes manifest for playing silly games with morph and megamorph. In draft or EDH, this goes well in a morph deck. Elegance (1.5/3): Are the concepts of the card easily understood at a glance? Do all the flavor and mechanics combined as a whole make sense?
Unlike the Khans Ascendancies, this has an activated ability - while I understand it was for the challenge, it's still strange to break that trend when 'continuing' a cycle.
Development Viability (3/3): 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?
This is absolutely a mythic, and it could hardly be anything but colourless. Nothing here breaks any rules that have good reasons not to be broken. Balance (2/3): 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 fun play experiences?
This seems too highly costed, with too small a payoff relative to when it hits, to be of much relevance in most constructed formats. In Limited it enables a strategy well, and helps to turn useless draws into relevant ones late in the game. In EDH this can easily turn a morph deck's cards relevant later in the game too.
Creativity Uniqueness (2/3): 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"?
Playing with the properties of face-down creatures is not exactly new space, though it is underexplored. Giving them a type reinvigorates it. Essentially giving every creature in your hand morph is also interesting. Flavor (1.5/3): 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?
The flavour is acceptable, but not particularly impressive or evocative.
Polish Quality (3/3): Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
No errors that I can see. Main Challenge (2/2): Points deducted if the card does not meet the main challenge or only partially meets the main challenge. Sub Challenges (2/2): One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Birch Elite2GW
Creature - Treefolk (R)
Birch Elite is indestructible as long as it's not your turn. 3G, T: Put a +1/+1 counter on target creature you control. Then that creature fights target creature you don't control. (Each deals damage equal to its power to the other.) Trespassers learn two things: Trees don't bend, and outsiders sure can break.
1/4
Design Appeal (1/3): Do the different player psychographics (Timmy/Johhny/Spike) have a use for the card? Does it create or fit into a deck/archetype?
Timmy finds the body unexciting, and Johnny sees nothing to write home about in the abilities. Spike sees repeatable removal at instant speed, and likes the invulnerability to sorcery-speed destruction from the other side - which includes wraths! - but she's probably put off by the relatively small body, and would like a higher power to better synergize with the abilities. Elegance (1/3): Are the concepts of the card easily understood at a glance? Do all the flavor and mechanics combined as a whole make sense?
There's not any particular direction to the abilities, flavour and body - the second ability in particular seems strange with the rest of the card, but nothing here really gels.
Development Viability (3/3): 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?
Nothing here seems wrong for colour or rarity. Balance (2/3): 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 fun play experiences?
This card is a powerhouse in limited, where it dodges a lot of removal and is itself repeatable removal, not to mention infinite indestructible blocks. I don't think I can see it in typical constructed formats. Honestly, I worry that this will be downright oppressive in limited when it shows up, depending on what removal turns out to be available - red and green, in particular, may find this card very difficult to deal with.
Creativity Uniqueness (2/3): 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"?
The first ability is new technology, and an indestructible fighter is also a new (if logical) development. Flavor (1.5/3): 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?
There's nothing particularly impressive here, but flavourwise this holds up reasonably.
Polish Quality (2.5/3): Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
The first ability should be "Birch Elite has indestructible as long as it's not your turn." (-0.5 points) Main Challenge (2/2): Points deducted if the card does not meet the main challenge or only partially meets the main challenge. Sub Challenges (2/2): One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Total: 17/25
Bold advances coletrain: 19/25
Flatline: 18.5/25
IcariiFA: 17/25
PsyOp: Did not submit
So, having judged a round now, I thought I'd raise a point about the Appeal section. One of the things we ask about the Appeal section is whether a card appeals to Spike, but often that depends on specifics of mana cost and body which in some ways are better-suited to the Balance section. My own approach so far has been to think of cards with drawbacks or high-skill play lines, which demand carefully considered decisions, as Spikey cards for the purposes of the Appeal section, and let how pushed the card is sit purely in Balance. What are other peoples' thoughts on the matter?
While a spikes point of view on a card often plays into balance, it really is asking how versatile a card is for an environment and not just raw power. Additionally it is part of the 3 player psychographics, and leaving one out of the section because it "also plays into balance" wouldn't seem...balanced. I think arguements could be made that other psychographics bleed into other sections of the rubric too, though perhaps in more subtle ways (johnny likes the creative aspects for example.) I think it should stay as is.
Oh, I didn't mean that as a comment on the rubric; I meant it in terms of judging. I think the rubric is fine how it is; the question is how best to judge "Does this card appeal to Spike" on a card-by-card basis. I feel like this is particularly relevant because the Appeal section comes under design, and while a vanilla 2/2 for R certainly appeals to a particular class of Spike, I don't know that it's super-innovative from a design perspective, you know? I think there's a difference between a design that appeals to Spike and a card that's been pushed hard enough to appeal to Spike, and I was wondering if other judges agreed with my perspective.
So, having judged a round now, I thought I'd raise a point about the Appeal section. One of the things we ask about the Appeal section is whether a card appeals to Spike, but often that depends on specifics of mana cost and body which in some ways are better-suited to the Balance section. My own approach so far has been to think of cards with drawbacks or high-skill play lines, which demand carefully considered decisions, as Spikey cards for the purposes of the Appeal section, and let how pushed the card is sit purely in Balance. What are other peoples' thoughts on the matter?
Pardon, but my comments may be a little terse. I'd not noticed that the player deadline had passed, or that the judge deadline was approaching so fast.
Design
Appeal (X/3): Do the different player psychographics (Timmy/Johhny/Spike) have a use for the card? Does it create or fit into a deck/archetype?
Elegance (X/3): Are the concepts of the card easily understood at a glance? Do all the flavor and mechanics combined as a whole make sense?
Development
Viability (X/3): 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?
Balance (X/3): 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 fun play experiences?
Creativity
Uniqueness (X/3): 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"?
Flavor (X/3): 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
Quality (X/3): Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
Main Challenge (X/2): Points deducted if the card does not meet the main challenge or only partially meets the main challenge.
Sub Challenges (X/2): One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Enrage the Land1RG
Sorcery (UC)
Target Mountain you control becomes a 4/2 red Elemental creature with trample. It's still a land.
Target Forest you control becomes a 2/4 green Elemental creature with reach. It's still a land. "Even Zendikar itself aids us against the Eldrazi."
-Nissa Revane
Design
Appeal (2/3): Do the different player psychographics (Timmy/Johhny/Spike) have a use for the card? Does it create or fit into a deck/archetype?
Spike likes the efficiency of getting two creatures for one card, not to mention the skill involved when your land base gets a little bit more complicated. Johnny might plausibly attempt to make use of cards intended to protect land to protect creatures, or vice versa, but otherwise is uninterested. Timmy doesn't care - 4/2 and 2/4 aren't big enough.
Elegance (2.5/3): Are the concepts of the card easily understood at a glance? Do all the flavor and mechanics combined as a whole make sense?
No major problems here. Zendikar is waking up, the forests and the mountains, to wreak slaughter upon its enemies. However, depending on what duals are in the environment, newer players may be disappointed to learn they can't cast it unless they actually control both a mountain and a forest.
Development
Viability (3/3): 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?
Perfectly acceptable in RG, perfectly within the rules, and suited admirably to the uncommon slot.
Balance (1.5/3): 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 fun play experiences?
This is, mildly, quite pushed. Six power on the board from turn three alone is scary - that four of it tramples, and it's on two separate bodies for purposes of buffing, only makes it worse. I'd feel more comfortable with this at 4, and I wouldn't be too surprised to see it at 5.
Creativity
Uniqueness (1.5/3): 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"?
Animating lands into creatures is nothing particularly new, and these are pretty straightforward creatures for red and green. Making two different kinds of creatures is a little interesting, but there's not much that's really new here.
Flavor (2/3): 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?
The flavour here makes perfect sense, and feels professional enough, but doesn't particularly excite me.
Polish
Quality (3/3): Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
Main Challenge (2/2): Points deducted if the card does not meet the main challenge or only partially meets the main challenge.
Sub Challenges (2/2): One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Ugin's Presence 5
Enchantment [rare] 5: Manifest a card in your hand 5: Exile a facedown creature you control. If that card an instant or sorcery, you may cast it without paying its mana cost.
Design
Appeal (1/3): Do the different player psychographics (Timmy/Johhny/Spike) have a use for the card? Does it create or fit into a deck/archetype?
Johnny is bound to see some potential for fun here - seeing what cards can be manifested to cast with the second ability, and how cheaply. Timmy doesn't much care for 2/2s, but may be rather pleased with the text 'without paying its mana cost' - although the number of hoops to be jumped through may dissuade him. Spike sees nothing here - no card advantage, no high-skill plays. It does synergize with having lots of manifest, but to the best of my knowledge that's not so much a deck - even in limited, most manifest is noncreature, which is antisynergistic with itself, although this card mitigates (but does not solve) that - what if you manifest this?
Elegance (1/3): Are the concepts of the card easily understood at a glance? Do all the flavor and mechanics combined as a whole make sense?
I'm not clear on why Ugin helps you cast instants and sorceries, but not enchantments or planeswalkers or artifacts. Manifesting cards from your hand is kind of odd, particularly because it costs two more than morphing, but at instant speed.
Development
Viability (2/3): 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?
The second ability feels almost more UR than colourless, but it's probably okay. This could probably be an uncommon.
Balance (1/3): 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 fun play experiences?
This feels rather weak. Manifesting creatures is usually only worthwhile for morph creatures, and you're paying two extra mana for flash there - the loss of tempo is probably not worth it. The second ability is a gimmick, which at best helps to mitigate the difficulties of manifest as a mechanic - you're still paying a lot of mana. The only way the second ability will become highly relevant is if someone manages to break it, frankly. It doesn't even seem limited playable, let alone anywhere else - maybe in Commander? But even there, the advantages tend to be marginal.
Creativity
Uniqueness (2/3): 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"?
Manifest is a recent mechanic, with mostly unexplored design space. Attacking its weaknesses is a good thought, and manifesting from hand is unusual.
Flavor (1/3): 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?
The flavour is weak and thin on the ground here - Ugin's present, but what does that actually mean?
Polish
Quality (3/3): Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
Main Challenge (2/2): Points deducted if the card does not meet the main challenge or only partially meets the main challenge.
Sub Challenges (1/2): One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Animate Equipment (Uncommon) 2U
Instant
Change the text of each Equipment you control by replacing all instances of "equipped creature" with "this creature" until end of turn. They become creatures with base power and toughness 3/3 until end of turn.
Design
Appeal (1.5/3): Do the different player psychographics (Timmy/Johhny/Spike) have a use for the card? Does it create or fit into a deck/archetype?
3/3? Timmy doesn't care all that much, although he doesn't object to getting to use all his equipment as a fighting force. Johnny sees some potential here, but the fact that the equipment all falls off, so that it acts separately, makes it somewhat less palatable. Spike is perhaps attracted to the opportunity to suddenly go wide for the win in an equipment deck, and by the sheer amount of body that can be had from playing this onto a board of small equipment.
Elegance (2.5/3): Are the concepts of the card easily understood at a glance? Do all the flavor and mechanics combined as a whole make sense?
Makes a lot of sense - it does just what it says on the tin. The first sentence is a little bit funky, but overall this is great.
Development
Viability (2/3): 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?
I'm not best-comfortable with this in blue. It's true that blue gets artifact animation, but equipment is more often a white game, and this is setting up for some nasty blocks or swings out of the blue in a way that doesn't feel very blue at all. It works in blue, but I'd rather have it in white. Uncommon is the right place for this.
Balance (2.5/3): 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 fun play experiences?
This is hard to assess in both limited and standard without understanding what equipment is available. I doubt it's strong enough to see Modern play, and it's certainly not going to show up in Legacy or Vintage without a serious shift in the metagame. It might see Commander play, although the most usual equipment decks in Commander aren't blue.
Creativity
Uniqueness (2.5/3): 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"?
An obvious riff on Animate Artifact, but making equipment grant themselves their own abilities is certainly fresh, and limiting it to a single turn but making it hit your whole board helps also.
Flavor (1/3): 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?
This is essentially flavourless. Unobjectionable, but also completely uninspiring.
Polish
Quality (3/3): Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
As a note, I almost missed the rarity - I'm used to finding it on the type line.
Main Challenge (2/2): Points deducted if the card does not meet the main challenge or only partially meets the main challenge.
Sub Challenges (2/2): One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Necromantic Intervention2BR
Instant (U)
Exile up to two cards at random from your graveyard in a face-down pile, shuffle that pile, then manifest those cards. (To manifest a card, put it onto the battlefield face down as a 2/2 creature. Turn it face up any time for its mana cost if it's a creature card.)
Design
Appeal (2/3): Do the different player psychographics (Timmy/Johhny/Spike) have a use for the card? Does it create or fit into a deck/archetype?
Timmy doesn't care in the least. Spike is turned off by the randomness, although the card advantage is good. Johnny is the most intrigued here, wanting to clear his graveyard and leave some cheap things with nasty ETB triggers to dodge - six mana for two Phyrexian Dreadnoughts sounds like a good time, eh? There's not really a deck here, unless you're building around it for a combo like the above.
Elegance (2/3): Are the concepts of the card easily understood at a glance? Do all the flavor and mechanics combined as a whole make sense?
This is mechanically pretty simple, although there's no real flavour to gel with - I would give you a higher score here if it were flavoured as being a desperate, grab-what-you-can thing, but that doesn't really come through.
Development
Viability (2/3): 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?
The only red here is randomness - the downside, in other words - and that's not much. I think this wants to be mono-black, or hand out haste. The deception leans blue, but it's a small enough element that I think it works. Uncommon is the right place for this.
Balance (3/3): 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 fun play experiences?
This seems pretty appropriately balanced. There's not a great deal to say here - this will be a Limited powerhouse, and may see commander play. Whether it shows up in standard is a bit harder to gauge, but my guess is probably not - the randomness is a big deal. It's not going to appear in Modern or older formats, I expect.
Creativity
Uniqueness (2/3): 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"?
Manifest from graveyard, with a Jeskai Infiltrator twist. Reasonably novel.
Flavor (1/3): 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?
There's just about no flavour here. It's a necromantic intervention, but what are you intervening in? The randomness and deception both seem to come out of nowhere, flavourwise.
Polish
Quality (3/3): Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
Main Challenge (2/2): Points deducted if the card does not meet the main challenge or only partially meets the main challenge.
Sub Challenges (2/2): One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
According to my MSE, this juuuust fits onto the card (with M15 border!):
Twisted ConscriptionUBBR
Sorcery (MR)
Each player reveals his or her hand. For each player, you may put a creature card with converted mana cost 6 or less from that player's hand onto the battlefield under your control. Those creatures gain haste until end of turn. Return them to their owners' hands at the beginning of the next end step.
Design
Appeal (2/3): Do the different player psychographics (Timmy/Johhny/Spike) have a use for the card? Does it create or fit into a deck/archetype?
Timmy loves the big beats. Johnny may try to exploit this somehow, making use of ETB triggers and bounces, but is put off by the dependence on the opponent's hand. Spike likes the efficiency of swinging with a 6-drop for four mana, but is also put off by the dependence on the opponent's hand.
Elegance (2.5/3): Are the concepts of the card easily understood at a glance? Do all the flavor and mechanics combined as a whole make sense?
This is pretty straightforward, I think.
Development
Viability (2/3): 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?
It's strange to me that you centre this in black, because I really don't see the black in this at all. The blue is pretty bizarre too - I could honestly have seen this in mono-red, although probably not at CMC 4. This is definitely at least a rare, and mythic is not a problem.
Balance (2/3): 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 fun play experiences?
The potential for value here if you have any sort of sacrifice engine is significant - in standard, many finishers are CMC 6, which this can grab. Getting high-end ETB effects for four mana is also significant. The fact that this is in three colours, and heavily so at that, makes me more comfortable, but this is certainly a limited bomb if the fixing for it exists, and likely to see significant standard play. It's absurd in Commander, but thankfully not repeatably so. Unfortunately, it's likely too slow for Modern and too demanding, slow and non-decisive for Legacy, never mind Vintage. I worry that this may be pushed a little hard for standard.
Creativity
Uniqueness (2.5/3): 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"?
Dashing from your hand is obvious. Dashing from your opponent's hand is not. This is quite fresh and new.
Flavor (1/3): 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?
The flavour here is minimal, and the name would suggest sacrifice to me more than it suggests returning the creatures to hand.
Polish
Quality (3/3): Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
Main Challenge (2/2): Points deducted if the card does not meet the main challenge or only partially meets the main challenge.
Sub Challenges (2/2): One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Hordechief's Call1RW
Instant (U)
Put three 1/1 white Warrior creature tokens onto the battlefield. Raid - Sacrifice those creatures at the beginning of the next upkeep unless you attacked with a creature this turn. "An ambush must be swift and brutal, but most important, it must leave no survivors."
-Zurgo, khan of the Mardu
Design
Appeal (1.5/3): Do the different player psychographics (Timmy/Johhny/Spike) have a use for the card? Does it create or fit into a deck/archetype?
This is too small to appeal to Timmy, and lacks any interesting hooks to appeal to Johnny. Spike appreciates the decision-making between establishing board presence and holding a combat trick. This slots neatly into an aggressive token archetype.
Elegance (2/3): Are the concepts of the card easily understood at a glance? Do all the flavor and mechanics combined as a whole make sense?
The hordechief calls, and warriors answer. That makes perfect sense. The raid effect is a bit less intuitive, but I suppose they only stick around if there's action going on? It works pretty well. The flavour text would suit tokens with haste or deathtouch better than vanilla tokens.
Development
Viability (3/3): 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?
No problems here. This is a solid uncommon, pretty cleanly RW, and not rules-breaking.
Balance (2.5/3): 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 fun play experiences?
This seems fairly costed, maybe even a little pushed. Many days it reads as a sorcery that puts three 1/1s in for 3, but it has options. It can also be worse if you're having trouble triggering Raid for some reason, but you shouldn't have trouble triggering Raid most of the time. Very decent in Limited, likely to see Standard play, unlikely to be relevant beyond there.
Creativity
Uniqueness (2/3): 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"?
The use of the raid drawback is the only really new thing here, but it gives a fascinating amount of new play to Raise the Alarm.
Flavor (2.5/3): 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?
This makes perfect sense as a Mardu card. The flavour is reasonably evocative.
Polish
Quality (3/3): Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
Main Challenge (2/2): Points deducted if the card does not meet the main challenge or only partially meets the main challenge.
Sub Challenges (2/2): One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Soul Reverser1BG
Artifact (M) t, Pay 1 life,Sacrifice three permanents: Reveal cards from the top of your library until you reveal two creature cards with converted mana cost less than the total converted mana cost of the sacrificed permanents. Put them onto the battlefield, then put all other cards revealed this way on the bottom of your library in a random order.
Design
Appeal (1/3): Do the different player psychographics (Timmy/Johhny/Spike) have a use for the card? Does it create or fit into a deck/archetype?
Timmy doesn't like sacrificing, and doesn't like the CMC restriction. Johnny may tailor a deck to cheat some specific things out, perhaps involving token generation or library manipulation. Spike dislikes the randomness of the effect.
Elegance (1/3): Are the concepts of the card easily understood at a glance? Do all the flavor and mechanics combined as a whole make sense?
The flavour (such as it is) and mechanics don't seem to mesh particularly well. It's strange that you sacrifice permanents but find only creatures.
Development
Viability (2/3): 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?
This seems appropriately BG, but doesn't have a mythic feel - this should just be a rare.
Balance (2/3): 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 fun play experiences?
The sheer randomness, and the composition of most limited decks, and the card disadvantage, combine to mean this is unlikely to see significant limited play. Standard is not likely to have the tools to really exploit this either. No, this seems to be designed for Modern, possibly with an entire deck built around it. Unfortunately, I can't really assess what that deck would look like, or how strong it would be, so I'll be generous here out of doubt.
Creativity
Uniqueness (2/3): 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"?
This puts me to some extent in mind of Birthing Pod. It's not an effect we've seen before, although all the pieces are already in play.
Flavor (0/3): 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?
The flavour here is almost nonexistent, and the name sounds rather silly. Calling it 'Soul Reverser' would maybe make more sense if you were sacrificing only creatures.
Polish
Quality (2.5/3): Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
You're missing a space between "Pay 1 life," and "Sacrifice three permanents" in the cost of the ability. (-0.5 points.)
Main Challenge (2/2): Points deducted if the card does not meet the main challenge or only partially meets the main challenge.
Sub Challenges (2/2): One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
When Soul of Gaea enters the battlefield, you may search your library for up to two creature cards with converted mana cost two or less and put them onto the battlefield.Then shuffle your library.
When Soul of Gae leaves the battlefield, destroy all creatures you control.
"With me comes life...
and death."
Design
Appeal (1.5/3): Do the different player psychographics (Timmy/Johhny/Spike) have a use for the card? Does it create or fit into a deck/archetype?
Johnny will certainly try to exploit this. Timmy doesn't care about creatures so small, and doesn't like the drawback. Spike may make use of this, but likely finds the efficiency not worth the drawback.
Elegance (1.5/3): Are the concepts of the card easily understood at a glance? Do all the flavor and mechanics combined as a whole make sense?
It's not particularly clear what the flavour here is meant to be, so it can't be said to mesh well. The effect is straightforward enough - you get some dudes, but suffer a setback if this is destroyed.
Development
Viability (3/3): 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?
This seems appropriate in green and at rare.
Balance (2/3): 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 fun play experiences?
This seems rather weak in any format with significant enchantment removal. In a format without, it's got potential, although it depends on the calibre of two-drops available - still, spending three mana for double tarmogoyf is nothing to sneeze at. Most likely to see Modern play, I would expect. It's very dubious in Limited, and Standard seldom has the 2-drops to merit so risky a play.
Creativity
Uniqueness (2/3): 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"?
The pieces all exist already, but this configuration is reasonably novel.
Flavor (1.5/3): 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?
The flavour is almost nonexistent here, unfortunately. Your flavour text is highly generic, as is your name.
Polish
Quality (2/3): Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
In the second ability, you have spelled 'Gaea' as 'Gae' (-0.5 points). The flavour text should not be split across two lines (-0.5 points).
Main Challenge (2/2): Points deducted if the card does not meet the main challenge or only partially meets the main challenge.
Sub Challenges (2/2): One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Sapling Rampart3G
Sorcery (U)
Put a 0/1 green Plant creature token onto the battlefield for each land you control. "Before we reached the walls, our invasion was stopped in it's tracks by these... these weeds." Gilo, Field Commander
Design
Appeal (1/3): Do the different player psychographics (Timmy/Johhny/Spike) have a use for the card? Does it create or fit into a deck/archetype?
Timmy doesn't care much. Johnny might use this as a ready source of tokens to sacrifice or pump. Spike isn't best-fond of purely defensive cards.
Elegance (2/3): Are the concepts of the card easily understood at a glance? Do all the flavor and mechanics combined as a whole make sense?
This is pretty straightforward, but the name sounds like a wall, not a sorcery to make tokens. Perhaps "Sapling Emergence" or similar.
Development
Viability (3/3): 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?
This is suitable as a green uncommon.
Balance (2/3): 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 fun play experiences?
This is a good stall in Limited, but is not likely to happen in Standard, let alone eternal formats. It might show up in Commander, where it's a lot of tokens.
Creativity
Uniqueness (2/3): 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"?
This feels reasonably new, and I can't think of any immediate antecedents, but the pieces are all there.
Flavor (2/3): 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?
The flavour is okay, but not highly evocative.
Polish
Quality (2.5/3): Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
The attribution should be on a separate line, and preceded by a dash (-0.5 points).
Main Challenge (2/2): Points deducted if the card does not meet the main challenge or only partially meets the main challenge.
Sub Challenges (2/2): One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Votes for IlGreven and CryoZenith. IlGreven gives a really neat conditional piece of common removal with highly intelligible flavour - this card feels more playable and more appropriate than the previous cards in the cycle. CryoZenith turns blocking into a completely different exercise, which is always entertaining, by making sure that damage gets through no matter what while also keeping all your creatures around for next turn - I'm not sure how strong it is, but it's certainly very interesting.
Delgan Explorer2B
Creature - Merfolk Scout [U]
Whenever Delgan Explorer deals combat damage to a player, you may search that player's library and your library for a Kraken, Leviathan, Octopus or Serpent card and put it into its owner's graveyard. Then each player whose library was searched this way shuffles his or her library.
2/3
Resounding FlamesXRRR
Sorcery (R)
Resounding Flames does X damage to target creature or player. When that creature dies this turn, you may cast a copy of Resounding Flames. That copy's value of X is one higher.
Votes for Rudyard and Indighost. I'm running a bit late today, so no in-depth reasoning I'm afraid.
Votes for netn10 and Piar. netn10's card meshes really nicely between flavour and mechanics; it's really good at evoking the concept. Piar has a really nice, simple upgrade on Temple Bell - it only costs one more mana - with the fascinating twist that it wants to be activated during your own turn, rather than just before.
Veil In Shadow2UU
Instant [R]
Exile any number of creatures you control in a face-down pile. Shuffle those cards, and then manifest them.
Edit: Piar, CryoZenith
@FortuitousEntity...Wouldn't your card be able to loop itself? Thus letting you draw and discard however many cards you want on your second turn? I could be mistaken.
You are mistaken, for a couple of reasons. First, and most important, no replacement effect can apply to a given event more than once - otherwise Thought Reflection would draw infinite cards. Second, even if that wasn't true, you have to discard before you draw, and each time you apply the ability you go down a card, which means you'll have to stop sooner or later.
Votes for Netn10 and Indighost. Indighost preys on my weakness for cards with off-colour abilities, here an off-colour flashback cost. What I really like about this is that while this spell couldn't be printed for 1B - black doesn't get this kind of condition on its destruction - casting it from the graveyard gives it that added black twist. Netn10 has a really interesting variant on Arc Lightning that forces you to pay more mana if you want to extract the most card advantage out of it.
Laboratory NuisanceR
Creature - Goblin Wizard (U)
If you would draw a card, you may discard two cards instead. If you do, draw two cards. The most annoying thing about her is the times she turns out to be right.
1/1
Heaster seems incredibly aggravating to play against; the combination of hexproof and low CMC lends itself to minimally interactive strategies, and he gives both you and everything you control soft hexproof (think of it as "As an additional cost to target this, have its controller draw a card") to make matters worse. This is an effect I would rather see at a higher cost on a more powerful body. Terramorphus feels a bit sad about not being allowed to use other peoples' mana abilities effectively most of the time; I feel like it's perhaps more at home in a five colour deck as part of the 99 than as a commander. Trixa's title is a bit silly for my liking. Shrelie is also rather aggravating, although less so than Heaster. Again, though, this is something I'd rather not see hit play on turn 3 in a commander game, even if it might be acceptable in a tiny leaders context. The Corpse Garden seems potentially extremely strong, but in a good way. It's a natural fit for a Ghave deck, of course, and potentially an interesting build-around on its own.
Votes for Bravelion and BlakeLotus. Bravelion's card puts me in mind of some of the most fun Invasion-block designs from a Limited perspective. If we ever get another multicolour set which returns to the more deliberately fluid and inclusive Invasion model of multicolour design, I could easily see that card being printed, and although it wouldn't be my favourite card in such a set, it would be a card to which I could point as a demonstration of the design decisions that would make me love the hypothetical set. BlakeLotus gives us a card perhaps less inspiring, but nonetheless interesting. I suspect it would see the most play in constructed for its anti-planeswalker use, but the ability to turn a bounce into a kill is very significant indeed. My only complaint is that, given its specificity, I would perhaps rather have seen this cost a little more and have cycling, or more yet and cantrip.
Mana RefractionG
Sorcery [U]
You may spend mana as though it were mana of any colour until end of turn.
Draw a card. The wizards were very excited by the theory of fundamental unity. The shamans were bemused by how long it took them to figure it out.
Supply RaidB3
Instant [C]
Draw a card.
Target player loses 2 life. You gain 2 life. "I fear no blade in battle, only the theft of the midnight intruder."
Design Appeal (1/3): Do the different player psychographics (Timmy/Johnny/Spike) have a use for the card? Does it create or fit into a deck/archetype? This isn't big enough to appeal to Timmy, nor does it have enough interesting interactions to appeal to Johnny. Its appeal to Spike depends a lot on how it's costed, but this kind of incremental advantage definitely has potential in that area - but see below about the mana cost. I can imagine this finding a home in some permission control decks to eke out an edge at end of turn without giving up cards, but not much elsewhere. Elegance (2.5/3): Are the concepts of the card easily understood at a glance? Do all the flavor and mechanics combined as a whole make sense? On a mechanical level, it's very straightforward to see what this card is doing. On a flavour level, likewise, and the mechanics and flavour cohere reasonably well. But there's a part of me that wishes you had added 'That player discards a card'. That total symmetry would really sell this as a raid.
Development Viability (3/3): 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? All good here. Drain effects are an established part of black's range, and cantrips are available everywhere. Something this simple seems perfectly fine at common. Balance (1/3): 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 fun play experiences? This is overcosted by at least one mana. Although it pays to be wary of cantrips, I can't imagine this being played even in limited formats at this cost, let alone anywhere else. I would have costed this somewhere between 1B and 2B, based on playtesting and the environment.
Creativity Uniqueness (1/3): 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"? Drain and cantrip are old tools, and this card doesn't use them in a particularly innovative way. Flavor (2/3): 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?
The flavour of this card is pretty straightforward; it's a raid on supplies. Nothing exceptional here, but it's coherent and unobtrusive.
Polish Quality (3.5/5): Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
Coloured mana goes after colourless in mana costs (-1 point). Although not strictly required, spells which cantrip almost always have drawing the card as their last effect unless they somehow make use of that drawn card (-0.5). The flavour text would read better if rewritten to remove the comma, but in good conscience I can't dock a point for that. Sub Challenges (2/2): One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
I assume both met here.
Ah well. If I'm honest, I knew the triple-hybrid cost was a bad idea, but I was so pleased with how damn clever it was - it set up the cost so it could be played in any two Jeskai colours, but was easiest by some margin to cast in all three, and the abilities were carefully chosen to match the colours. But yeah, I almost certainly should have gone with simple over clever. Congratulations to those going on to the finals.
Good as always. Hostile Takeover sounds very interesting, I can't wait to hear your progress on that. I've seen an increase on the amount of four-color cards around here lately, and now I may have understood the reason... (if you're following my MCC this month you'll understand the reason for this comment soon enough...)
Aw, nuts. Here I was hoping you were gonna go easy on us and make the last challenge five-colour.
Appeal (X/3): Do the different player psychographics (Timmy/Johhny/Spike) have a use for the card? Does it create or fit into a deck/archetype?
Elegance (X/3): Are the concepts of the card easily understood at a glance? Do all the flavor and mechanics combined as a whole make sense?
Development
Viability (X/3): 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?
Balance (X/3): 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 fun play experiences?
Creativity
Uniqueness (X/3): 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"?
Flavor (X/3): 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
Quality (X/3): Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
Main Challenge (X/2): Points deducted if the card does not meet the main challenge or only partially meets the main challenge.
Sub Challenges (X/2): One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Total: X/25
Appeal (1.5/3): Do the different player psychographics (Timmy/Johhny/Spike) have a use for the card? Does it create or fit into a deck/archetype?
This is a Johnny card through and through. Spike's unlikely to enjoy having to spend seven mana and three turns before she sees a payoff, and Timmy is rarely excited by three mana creatures, although the possibility of a full board of creatures all buffing each other may be nice. I don't really see this going in any particular deck or archetype, and it's unlikely to take off in constructed simply because of the mana and time investments required, but in EDH it may allow for shenanigans similar to those seen with Experiment Kraj.
Elegance (2.5/3): Are the concepts of the card easily understood at a glance? Do all the flavor and mechanics combined as a whole make sense?
This card seems to be building a mind nexus out of a bunch of creatures, reinforcing them all with the powers of the others. Which is great, except... why doesn't Onur enter with a nexus counter? You lose a bit there, but otherwise this holds up well.
Development
Viability (2.5/3): 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?
The mass buffing is slightly bleedy in blue, and the flavour also suggests blue-white - building a telepathic nexus for cooperation feels very blue/white. Still, this is viable in mono-blue. Definitely a mythic.
Balance (2/3): 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 fun play experiences?
Assuming that the body is irrelevant, this card is unlikely to matter in Standard or in conventional eternal formats. In Limited it may be playable, depending on the size of the body and the speed of the format, simply as a mass buff, but barring unusual archetypes is unlikely to be a first pick. In EDH this will shine, seeing play in a lot of blue decks and encouraging political plays in a way that I really love.
Creativity
Uniqueness (2.5/3): 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"?
Granting activated abilities in this way is not something that's been done before, although sharing activated abilities is established technology. The buff that scales with the creatures being buffed is also new.
Flavor (2.5/3): 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?
This makes perfect sense flavourwise, the name and mechanics combining pleasantly. Evocative and straightforward.
Polish
Quality (1.5/3): Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
Power and toughness are missing (-1.5 points).
Main Challenge (2/2): Points deducted if the card does not meet the main challenge or only partially meets the main challenge.
Sub Challenges (2/2): One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Total: 19/25
Appeal (1.5/3): Do the different player psychographics (Timmy/Johhny/Spike) have a use for the card? Does it create or fit into a deck/archetype?
Spike doesn't like spending six mana on an enchantment before she sees any payoff. Timmy appreciates all the dragons, but is most likely looking for something a little bigger than 4/4 - still, lots of 4/4s will make his day. Johnny likes manifest for playing silly games with morph and megamorph. In draft or EDH, this goes well in a morph deck.
Elegance (1.5/3): Are the concepts of the card easily understood at a glance? Do all the flavor and mechanics combined as a whole make sense?
Unlike the Khans Ascendancies, this has an activated ability - while I understand it was for the challenge, it's still strange to break that trend when 'continuing' a cycle.
Development
Viability (3/3): 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?
This is absolutely a mythic, and it could hardly be anything but colourless. Nothing here breaks any rules that have good reasons not to be broken.
Balance (2/3): 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 fun play experiences?
This seems too highly costed, with too small a payoff relative to when it hits, to be of much relevance in most constructed formats. In Limited it enables a strategy well, and helps to turn useless draws into relevant ones late in the game. In EDH this can easily turn a morph deck's cards relevant later in the game too.
Creativity
Uniqueness (2/3): 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"?
Playing with the properties of face-down creatures is not exactly new space, though it is underexplored. Giving them a type reinvigorates it. Essentially giving every creature in your hand morph is also interesting.
Flavor (1.5/3): 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?
The flavour is acceptable, but not particularly impressive or evocative.
Polish
Quality (3/3): Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
No errors that I can see.
Main Challenge (2/2): Points deducted if the card does not meet the main challenge or only partially meets the main challenge.
Sub Challenges (2/2): One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Total: 18.5/25
Appeal (1/3): Do the different player psychographics (Timmy/Johhny/Spike) have a use for the card? Does it create or fit into a deck/archetype?
Timmy finds the body unexciting, and Johnny sees nothing to write home about in the abilities. Spike sees repeatable removal at instant speed, and likes the invulnerability to sorcery-speed destruction from the other side - which includes wraths! - but she's probably put off by the relatively small body, and would like a higher power to better synergize with the abilities.
Elegance (1/3): Are the concepts of the card easily understood at a glance? Do all the flavor and mechanics combined as a whole make sense?
There's not any particular direction to the abilities, flavour and body - the second ability in particular seems strange with the rest of the card, but nothing here really gels.
Development
Viability (3/3): 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?
Nothing here seems wrong for colour or rarity.
Balance (2/3): 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 fun play experiences?
This card is a powerhouse in limited, where it dodges a lot of removal and is itself repeatable removal, not to mention infinite indestructible blocks. I don't think I can see it in typical constructed formats. Honestly, I worry that this will be downright oppressive in limited when it shows up, depending on what removal turns out to be available - red and green, in particular, may find this card very difficult to deal with.
Creativity
Uniqueness (2/3): 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"?
The first ability is new technology, and an indestructible fighter is also a new (if logical) development.
Flavor (1.5/3): 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?
There's nothing particularly impressive here, but flavourwise this holds up reasonably.
Polish
Quality (2.5/3): Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
The first ability should be "Birch Elite has indestructible as long as it's not your turn." (-0.5 points)
Main Challenge (2/2): Points deducted if the card does not meet the main challenge or only partially meets the main challenge.
Sub Challenges (2/2): One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Total: 17/25
coletrain: 19/25
Flatline: 18.5/25
IcariiFA: 17/25
PsyOp: Did not submit
Oh, I didn't mean that as a comment on the rubric; I meant it in terms of judging. I think the rubric is fine how it is; the question is how best to judge "Does this card appeal to Spike" on a card-by-card basis. I feel like this is particularly relevant because the Appeal section comes under design, and while a vanilla 2/2 for R certainly appeals to a particular class of Spike, I don't know that it's super-innovative from a design perspective, you know? I think there's a difference between a design that appeals to Spike and a card that's been pushed hard enough to appeal to Spike, and I was wondering if other judges agreed with my perspective.
Appeal (X/3): Do the different player psychographics (Timmy/Johhny/Spike) have a use for the card? Does it create or fit into a deck/archetype?
Elegance (X/3): Are the concepts of the card easily understood at a glance? Do all the flavor and mechanics combined as a whole make sense?
Development
Viability (X/3): 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?
Balance (X/3): 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 fun play experiences?
Creativity
Uniqueness (X/3): 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"?
Flavor (X/3): 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
Quality (X/3): Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
Main Challenge (X/2): Points deducted if the card does not meet the main challenge or only partially meets the main challenge.
Sub Challenges (X/2): One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Total: X/25
Appeal (2/3): Do the different player psychographics (Timmy/Johhny/Spike) have a use for the card? Does it create or fit into a deck/archetype?
Spike likes the efficiency of getting two creatures for one card, not to mention the skill involved when your land base gets a little bit more complicated. Johnny might plausibly attempt to make use of cards intended to protect land to protect creatures, or vice versa, but otherwise is uninterested. Timmy doesn't care - 4/2 and 2/4 aren't big enough.
Elegance (2.5/3): Are the concepts of the card easily understood at a glance? Do all the flavor and mechanics combined as a whole make sense?
No major problems here. Zendikar is waking up, the forests and the mountains, to wreak slaughter upon its enemies. However, depending on what duals are in the environment, newer players may be disappointed to learn they can't cast it unless they actually control both a mountain and a forest.
Development
Viability (3/3): 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?
Perfectly acceptable in RG, perfectly within the rules, and suited admirably to the uncommon slot.
Balance (1.5/3): 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 fun play experiences?
This is, mildly, quite pushed. Six power on the board from turn three alone is scary - that four of it tramples, and it's on two separate bodies for purposes of buffing, only makes it worse. I'd feel more comfortable with this at 4, and I wouldn't be too surprised to see it at 5.
Creativity
Uniqueness (1.5/3): 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"?
Animating lands into creatures is nothing particularly new, and these are pretty straightforward creatures for red and green. Making two different kinds of creatures is a little interesting, but there's not much that's really new here.
Flavor (2/3): 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?
The flavour here makes perfect sense, and feels professional enough, but doesn't particularly excite me.
Polish
Quality (3/3): Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
Main Challenge (2/2): Points deducted if the card does not meet the main challenge or only partially meets the main challenge.
Sub Challenges (2/2): One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Total: 19/25
Appeal (1/3): Do the different player psychographics (Timmy/Johhny/Spike) have a use for the card? Does it create or fit into a deck/archetype?
Johnny is bound to see some potential for fun here - seeing what cards can be manifested to cast with the second ability, and how cheaply. Timmy doesn't much care for 2/2s, but may be rather pleased with the text 'without paying its mana cost' - although the number of hoops to be jumped through may dissuade him. Spike sees nothing here - no card advantage, no high-skill plays. It does synergize with having lots of manifest, but to the best of my knowledge that's not so much a deck - even in limited, most manifest is noncreature, which is antisynergistic with itself, although this card mitigates (but does not solve) that - what if you manifest this?
Elegance (1/3): Are the concepts of the card easily understood at a glance? Do all the flavor and mechanics combined as a whole make sense?
I'm not clear on why Ugin helps you cast instants and sorceries, but not enchantments or planeswalkers or artifacts. Manifesting cards from your hand is kind of odd, particularly because it costs two more than morphing, but at instant speed.
Development
Viability (2/3): 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?
The second ability feels almost more UR than colourless, but it's probably okay. This could probably be an uncommon.
Balance (1/3): 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 fun play experiences?
This feels rather weak. Manifesting creatures is usually only worthwhile for morph creatures, and you're paying two extra mana for flash there - the loss of tempo is probably not worth it. The second ability is a gimmick, which at best helps to mitigate the difficulties of manifest as a mechanic - you're still paying a lot of mana. The only way the second ability will become highly relevant is if someone manages to break it, frankly. It doesn't even seem limited playable, let alone anywhere else - maybe in Commander? But even there, the advantages tend to be marginal.
Creativity
Uniqueness (2/3): 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"?
Manifest is a recent mechanic, with mostly unexplored design space. Attacking its weaknesses is a good thought, and manifesting from hand is unusual.
Flavor (1/3): 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?
The flavour is weak and thin on the ground here - Ugin's present, but what does that actually mean?
Polish
Quality (3/3): Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
Main Challenge (2/2): Points deducted if the card does not meet the main challenge or only partially meets the main challenge.
Sub Challenges (1/2): One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Total: 14/25
Appeal (1.5/3): Do the different player psychographics (Timmy/Johhny/Spike) have a use for the card? Does it create or fit into a deck/archetype?
3/3? Timmy doesn't care all that much, although he doesn't object to getting to use all his equipment as a fighting force. Johnny sees some potential here, but the fact that the equipment all falls off, so that it acts separately, makes it somewhat less palatable. Spike is perhaps attracted to the opportunity to suddenly go wide for the win in an equipment deck, and by the sheer amount of body that can be had from playing this onto a board of small equipment.
Elegance (2.5/3): Are the concepts of the card easily understood at a glance? Do all the flavor and mechanics combined as a whole make sense?
Makes a lot of sense - it does just what it says on the tin. The first sentence is a little bit funky, but overall this is great.
Development
Viability (2/3): 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?
I'm not best-comfortable with this in blue. It's true that blue gets artifact animation, but equipment is more often a white game, and this is setting up for some nasty blocks or swings out of the blue in a way that doesn't feel very blue at all. It works in blue, but I'd rather have it in white. Uncommon is the right place for this.
Balance (2.5/3): 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 fun play experiences?
This is hard to assess in both limited and standard without understanding what equipment is available. I doubt it's strong enough to see Modern play, and it's certainly not going to show up in Legacy or Vintage without a serious shift in the metagame. It might see Commander play, although the most usual equipment decks in Commander aren't blue.
Creativity
Uniqueness (2.5/3): 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"?
An obvious riff on Animate Artifact, but making equipment grant themselves their own abilities is certainly fresh, and limiting it to a single turn but making it hit your whole board helps also.
Flavor (1/3): 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?
This is essentially flavourless. Unobjectionable, but also completely uninspiring.
Polish
Quality (3/3): Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
As a note, I almost missed the rarity - I'm used to finding it on the type line.
Main Challenge (2/2): Points deducted if the card does not meet the main challenge or only partially meets the main challenge.
Sub Challenges (2/2): One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Total: 19/25
Appeal (2/3): Do the different player psychographics (Timmy/Johhny/Spike) have a use for the card? Does it create or fit into a deck/archetype?
Timmy doesn't care in the least. Spike is turned off by the randomness, although the card advantage is good. Johnny is the most intrigued here, wanting to clear his graveyard and leave some cheap things with nasty ETB triggers to dodge - six mana for two Phyrexian Dreadnoughts sounds like a good time, eh? There's not really a deck here, unless you're building around it for a combo like the above.
Elegance (2/3): Are the concepts of the card easily understood at a glance? Do all the flavor and mechanics combined as a whole make sense?
This is mechanically pretty simple, although there's no real flavour to gel with - I would give you a higher score here if it were flavoured as being a desperate, grab-what-you-can thing, but that doesn't really come through.
Development
Viability (2/3): 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?
The only red here is randomness - the downside, in other words - and that's not much. I think this wants to be mono-black, or hand out haste. The deception leans blue, but it's a small enough element that I think it works. Uncommon is the right place for this.
Balance (3/3): 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 fun play experiences?
This seems pretty appropriately balanced. There's not a great deal to say here - this will be a Limited powerhouse, and may see commander play. Whether it shows up in standard is a bit harder to gauge, but my guess is probably not - the randomness is a big deal. It's not going to appear in Modern or older formats, I expect.
Creativity
Uniqueness (2/3): 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"?
Manifest from graveyard, with a Jeskai Infiltrator twist. Reasonably novel.
Flavor (1/3): 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?
There's just about no flavour here. It's a necromantic intervention, but what are you intervening in? The randomness and deception both seem to come out of nowhere, flavourwise.
Polish
Quality (3/3): Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
Main Challenge (2/2): Points deducted if the card does not meet the main challenge or only partially meets the main challenge.
Sub Challenges (2/2): One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Total: 19/25
Appeal (2/3): Do the different player psychographics (Timmy/Johhny/Spike) have a use for the card? Does it create or fit into a deck/archetype?
Timmy loves the big beats. Johnny may try to exploit this somehow, making use of ETB triggers and bounces, but is put off by the dependence on the opponent's hand. Spike likes the efficiency of swinging with a 6-drop for four mana, but is also put off by the dependence on the opponent's hand.
Elegance (2.5/3): Are the concepts of the card easily understood at a glance? Do all the flavor and mechanics combined as a whole make sense?
This is pretty straightforward, I think.
Development
Viability (2/3): 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?
It's strange to me that you centre this in black, because I really don't see the black in this at all. The blue is pretty bizarre too - I could honestly have seen this in mono-red, although probably not at CMC 4. This is definitely at least a rare, and mythic is not a problem.
Balance (2/3): 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 fun play experiences?
The potential for value here if you have any sort of sacrifice engine is significant - in standard, many finishers are CMC 6, which this can grab. Getting high-end ETB effects for four mana is also significant. The fact that this is in three colours, and heavily so at that, makes me more comfortable, but this is certainly a limited bomb if the fixing for it exists, and likely to see significant standard play. It's absurd in Commander, but thankfully not repeatably so. Unfortunately, it's likely too slow for Modern and too demanding, slow and non-decisive for Legacy, never mind Vintage. I worry that this may be pushed a little hard for standard.
Creativity
Uniqueness (2.5/3): 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"?
Dashing from your hand is obvious. Dashing from your opponent's hand is not. This is quite fresh and new.
Flavor (1/3): 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?
The flavour here is minimal, and the name would suggest sacrifice to me more than it suggests returning the creatures to hand.
Polish
Quality (3/3): Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
Main Challenge (2/2): Points deducted if the card does not meet the main challenge or only partially meets the main challenge.
Sub Challenges (2/2): One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Total: 19/25
Appeal (1.5/3): Do the different player psychographics (Timmy/Johhny/Spike) have a use for the card? Does it create or fit into a deck/archetype?
This is too small to appeal to Timmy, and lacks any interesting hooks to appeal to Johnny. Spike appreciates the decision-making between establishing board presence and holding a combat trick. This slots neatly into an aggressive token archetype.
Elegance (2/3): Are the concepts of the card easily understood at a glance? Do all the flavor and mechanics combined as a whole make sense?
The hordechief calls, and warriors answer. That makes perfect sense. The raid effect is a bit less intuitive, but I suppose they only stick around if there's action going on? It works pretty well. The flavour text would suit tokens with haste or deathtouch better than vanilla tokens.
Development
Viability (3/3): 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?
No problems here. This is a solid uncommon, pretty cleanly RW, and not rules-breaking.
Balance (2.5/3): 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 fun play experiences?
This seems fairly costed, maybe even a little pushed. Many days it reads as a sorcery that puts three 1/1s in for 3, but it has options. It can also be worse if you're having trouble triggering Raid for some reason, but you shouldn't have trouble triggering Raid most of the time. Very decent in Limited, likely to see Standard play, unlikely to be relevant beyond there.
Creativity
Uniqueness (2/3): 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"?
The use of the raid drawback is the only really new thing here, but it gives a fascinating amount of new play to Raise the Alarm.
Flavor (2.5/3): 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?
This makes perfect sense as a Mardu card. The flavour is reasonably evocative.
Polish
Quality (3/3): Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
Main Challenge (2/2): Points deducted if the card does not meet the main challenge or only partially meets the main challenge.
Sub Challenges (2/2): One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Total: 18.5/25
Appeal (1/3): Do the different player psychographics (Timmy/Johhny/Spike) have a use for the card? Does it create or fit into a deck/archetype?
Timmy doesn't like sacrificing, and doesn't like the CMC restriction. Johnny may tailor a deck to cheat some specific things out, perhaps involving token generation or library manipulation. Spike dislikes the randomness of the effect.
Elegance (1/3): Are the concepts of the card easily understood at a glance? Do all the flavor and mechanics combined as a whole make sense?
The flavour (such as it is) and mechanics don't seem to mesh particularly well. It's strange that you sacrifice permanents but find only creatures.
Development
Viability (2/3): 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?
This seems appropriately BG, but doesn't have a mythic feel - this should just be a rare.
Balance (2/3): 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 fun play experiences?
The sheer randomness, and the composition of most limited decks, and the card disadvantage, combine to mean this is unlikely to see significant limited play. Standard is not likely to have the tools to really exploit this either. No, this seems to be designed for Modern, possibly with an entire deck built around it. Unfortunately, I can't really assess what that deck would look like, or how strong it would be, so I'll be generous here out of doubt.
Creativity
Uniqueness (2/3): 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"?
This puts me to some extent in mind of Birthing Pod. It's not an effect we've seen before, although all the pieces are already in play.
Flavor (0/3): 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?
The flavour here is almost nonexistent, and the name sounds rather silly. Calling it 'Soul Reverser' would maybe make more sense if you were sacrificing only creatures.
Polish
Quality (2.5/3): Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
You're missing a space between "Pay 1 life," and "Sacrifice three permanents" in the cost of the ability. (-0.5 points.)
Main Challenge (2/2): Points deducted if the card does not meet the main challenge or only partially meets the main challenge.
Sub Challenges (2/2): One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Total: 14.5/25
Appeal (1.5/3): Do the different player psychographics (Timmy/Johhny/Spike) have a use for the card? Does it create or fit into a deck/archetype?
Johnny will certainly try to exploit this. Timmy doesn't care about creatures so small, and doesn't like the drawback. Spike may make use of this, but likely finds the efficiency not worth the drawback.
Elegance (1.5/3): Are the concepts of the card easily understood at a glance? Do all the flavor and mechanics combined as a whole make sense?
It's not particularly clear what the flavour here is meant to be, so it can't be said to mesh well. The effect is straightforward enough - you get some dudes, but suffer a setback if this is destroyed.
Development
Viability (3/3): 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?
This seems appropriate in green and at rare.
Balance (2/3): 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 fun play experiences?
This seems rather weak in any format with significant enchantment removal. In a format without, it's got potential, although it depends on the calibre of two-drops available - still, spending three mana for double tarmogoyf is nothing to sneeze at. Most likely to see Modern play, I would expect. It's very dubious in Limited, and Standard seldom has the 2-drops to merit so risky a play.
Creativity
Uniqueness (2/3): 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"?
The pieces all exist already, but this configuration is reasonably novel.
Flavor (1.5/3): 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?
The flavour is almost nonexistent here, unfortunately. Your flavour text is highly generic, as is your name.
Polish
Quality (2/3): Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
In the second ability, you have spelled 'Gaea' as 'Gae' (-0.5 points). The flavour text should not be split across two lines (-0.5 points).
Main Challenge (2/2): Points deducted if the card does not meet the main challenge or only partially meets the main challenge.
Sub Challenges (2/2): One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Total: 17.5/25
Appeal (1/3): Do the different player psychographics (Timmy/Johhny/Spike) have a use for the card? Does it create or fit into a deck/archetype?
Timmy doesn't care much. Johnny might use this as a ready source of tokens to sacrifice or pump. Spike isn't best-fond of purely defensive cards.
Elegance (2/3): Are the concepts of the card easily understood at a glance? Do all the flavor and mechanics combined as a whole make sense?
This is pretty straightforward, but the name sounds like a wall, not a sorcery to make tokens. Perhaps "Sapling Emergence" or similar.
Development
Viability (3/3): 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?
This is suitable as a green uncommon.
Balance (2/3): 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 fun play experiences?
This is a good stall in Limited, but is not likely to happen in Standard, let alone eternal formats. It might show up in Commander, where it's a lot of tokens.
Creativity
Uniqueness (2/3): 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"?
This feels reasonably new, and I can't think of any immediate antecedents, but the pieces are all there.
Flavor (2/3): 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?
The flavour is okay, but not highly evocative.
Polish
Quality (2.5/3): Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
The attribution should be on a separate line, and preceded by a dash (-0.5 points).
Main Challenge (2/2): Points deducted if the card does not meet the main challenge or only partially meets the main challenge.
Sub Challenges (2/2): One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Total: 18.5/25
Doomfish: 19/25
PE: 14/25
Legend: 19/25
Moss_Elemental: 19/25
thenoodler: 19/25
Ogonomany: 18.5/25
CrazyMatt: 14.5/25
Freyleyes: 17.5/25
Koopa: 18.5/25
Delgan Explorer 2B
Creature - Merfolk Scout [U]
Whenever Delgan Explorer deals combat damage to a player, you may search that player's library and your library for a Kraken, Leviathan, Octopus or Serpent card and put it into its owner's graveyard. Then each player whose library was searched this way shuffles his or her library.
2/3
Sorcery (R)
Resounding Flames does X damage to target creature or player. When that creature dies this turn, you may cast a copy of Resounding Flames. That copy's value of X is one higher.
Votes for Rudyard and Indighost. I'm running a bit late today, so no in-depth reasoning I'm afraid.
Veil In Shadow 2UU
Instant [R]
Exile any number of creatures you control in a face-down pile. Shuffle those cards, and then manifest them.
You are mistaken, for a couple of reasons. First, and most important, no replacement effect can apply to a given event more than once - otherwise Thought Reflection would draw infinite cards. Second, even if that wasn't true, you have to discard before you draw, and each time you apply the ability you go down a card, which means you'll have to stop sooner or later.
Laboratory Nuisance R
Creature - Goblin Wizard (U)
If you would draw a card, you may discard two cards instead. If you do, draw two cards.
The most annoying thing about her is the times she turns out to be right.
1/1
Mana Refraction G
Sorcery [U]
You may spend mana as though it were mana of any colour until end of turn.
Draw a card.
The wizards were very excited by the theory of fundamental unity. The shamans were bemused by how long it took them to figure it out.
Appeal (1/3): Do the different player psychographics (Timmy/Johnny/Spike) have a use for the card? Does it create or fit into a deck/archetype?
This isn't big enough to appeal to Timmy, nor does it have enough interesting interactions to appeal to Johnny. Its appeal to Spike depends a lot on how it's costed, but this kind of incremental advantage definitely has potential in that area - but see below about the mana cost. I can imagine this finding a home in some permission control decks to eke out an edge at end of turn without giving up cards, but not much elsewhere.
Elegance (2.5/3): Are the concepts of the card easily understood at a glance? Do all the flavor and mechanics combined as a whole make sense?
On a mechanical level, it's very straightforward to see what this card is doing. On a flavour level, likewise, and the mechanics and flavour cohere reasonably well. But there's a part of me that wishes you had added 'That player discards a card'. That total symmetry would really sell this as a raid.
Development
Viability (3/3): 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?
All good here. Drain effects are an established part of black's range, and cantrips are available everywhere. Something this simple seems perfectly fine at common.
Balance (1/3): 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 fun play experiences?
This is overcosted by at least one mana. Although it pays to be wary of cantrips, I can't imagine this being played even in limited formats at this cost, let alone anywhere else. I would have costed this somewhere between 1B and 2B, based on playtesting and the environment.
Creativity
Uniqueness (1/3): 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"?
Drain and cantrip are old tools, and this card doesn't use them in a particularly innovative way.
Flavor (2/3): 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?
The flavour of this card is pretty straightforward; it's a raid on supplies. Nothing exceptional here, but it's coherent and unobtrusive.
Polish
Quality (3.5/5): Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
Coloured mana goes after colourless in mana costs (-1 point). Although not strictly required, spells which cantrip almost always have drawing the card as their last effect unless they somehow make use of that drawn card (-0.5). The flavour text would read better if rewritten to remove the comma, but in good conscience I can't dock a point for that.
Sub Challenges (2/2): One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
I assume both met here.
Total: 16/25
Aw, nuts. Here I was hoping you were gonna go easy on us and make the last challenge five-colour.