I'm offering my services as a frequent host and judge for the monthly card contest held here on MTGSalvation. I really like to challenge players and evaluate cards. Here in this thread you can take advantage of that! Whether you want some practice designing under the MCC rubric, want an additional opinion outside of the actual contest, or want to submit something just for fun for a detailed review, throw down a post and ill get back to you in a few days.
Some rules:
Only one card per person at a time. Cycles/groups of cards will be ignored as will additional submissions before I've judged your current one.
Provide your own challenge and sub challenge criteria! Otherwise when I judge your card, I will assume all the challenges are met.
I will not judge cards related to a round that is currently in progress for the MCC for ethical reasons.
I'll try to review submission within a span of week after submitted. Sometimes I'll be faster, sometimes not.
I will judge in order of submission.
Questions and clarifications are more than allowed, but remember nothing is on the line here. This is for fun/practice!
Design - (X/3) Appeal: Do the different player psychographics (Timmy/Johhny/Spike) have a use for the card? (X/3) Elegance: Is the card easily understandable at a glance? Do all the flavor and mechanics combined as a whole make sense?
Development - (X/3) Viability: How well does the card fit into the color wheel? Does it break or bend the rules of the game? Is it the appropriate rarity? (X/3) Balance: Does the card have a power level appropriate for contemporary constructed/limited environments without breaking them? Does it play well in casual and multiplayer formats? Does it create or fit into a deck/archetype? Does it create an oppressive environment?
Creativity - (X/3) Uniqueness: Has a card like this ever been printed before? Does it use new mechanics, ideas, or design space? Does it combine old ideas in a new way? Overall, does it feel “fresh”? (X/3) Flavor: Does the name seem realistic for a card? Does the flavor text sound professional? Do all the flavor elements synch together to please Vorthos players?
Polish - (X/3) Quality: Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating. (X/2) *Main Challenge: Was the main challenge satisfied? Was it approached in a unique or interesting way? Does the card fit the intent of the challenge? (X/2) Subchallenges: One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Total: X/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Main Challenge: Make a card that references, but does not actually have, a block mechanic.
Subchallenge 1: Is colorless.
Subchallenge 2: The block mechanic referenced is from more than five years ago.
Sector of the Maelstrom
Land (R) T: Add C to your mana pool. T: Add one mana of any color to your mana pool. Spend this mana only to cast a spell with cascade.
Main Challenge: Make a card that references, but does not actually have, a block mechanic.
Subchallenge 1: Is colorless.
Subchallenge 2: The block mechanic referenced is from more than five years ago.
Sector of the Maelstrom
Land (R) T: Add C to your mana pool. T: Add one mana of any color to your mana pool. Spend this mana only to cast a spell with cascade.
Design - (1/3) Appeal: Lands like this have little chance with timmy since it doesnt refrence a "cool" tribe or card type. Cascade is too abstract for him. The use of it by johnny is self explanatory; there is nothing for him to solve. Cascade cards have been very powerful, and an environment where they are prevalent would make spike seriously consider a card like this. (3/3) Elegance: Nothing at all confusing here.
Development - (3/3) Viability: This makes sense as a rare land. In a set with cascade cards, rare makes more sense then uncommon since it would be supporting a relatively small group of cards. That has been a fairly consistent trend for tribal or keyword/mechanic referencing land cards. The game stays intact. (2/3) Balance: As far as this kind of effect goes, it's on the weaker side. Cascade cards are a fairly small group of cards, and its rare that you'd build a deck focusing on cascade spells (though its certainly is a fun casual prospective). That makes it more niche then lands like ally encampment or primal beyond, both which have additional upsides besides. Anyone who wants to run Maelstrom Wanderer as their commander will auto include this though.
Creativity - (1/3) Uniqueness: This card really isnt fresh, outside the "spend... only" clause referring to a keyword ability rather than a tribe/card type. Otherwise it uses the same template and ideas of a half dozen other lands. (2/3) Flavor: Referencing the maelstrom only makes sense for cascade. There is room for flavor text here to make the card feel more special, but that was ignored.
Polish - (3/3) Quality: On point. (2/2) *Main Challenge: Accomplished. (2/2) Subchallenges: Alara Reborn says yes, this is more than 5 years old. As a land, it's colorless.
Total: 19/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Cannibal Scourge 2BB
Creature - Zombie
2/3
Whenever you destroy a creature, exile that creature and put a +1/+0 counter on Cannibal Scourge. B: Destroy target creature you control.
Cannibal Scourge 2BB
Creature - Zombie
2/3
Whenever you destroy a creature, exile that creature and put a +1/+0 counter on Cannibal Scourge. B: Destroy target creature you control.
Design - (1.5/3) Appeal: Timmy likes that it grows, but really is grossed out by an activate ability to kill your own stuff. Johnny might try to take advantage of its grow with tokens, death triggers, and other shenangians that caused mass death. The power level is pretty low for spike, and the option to kill your creatures for no other beneift then a little pump is not something he likes. The number of options the activate ability has is deceptively limited. (0.5/3) Elegance: Between formatting issues, not quite working, and using +1/+0 counters this card really isn't that elegant. Also, the fact that you ca use the ability to kill itself is extremely weird. It should at least be "destroy another target creature". At least the way its worded is fairly succinct and contemporary. What's the point of exiling here?
Development - (1/3) Viability: It is black, i'll grant you that. Rarity is missing, so you lose a full point their. The other think is that the "Whenever" clause doesn't work. You, the player, don't ever destroy creatures. The spells you cast and the creatures that fight for you do. So as is, that ability will not trigger, making the card pointless. (1/3) Balance: Assuming this card worked (every time something you controlled destroy a creature, it got bigger) this might be an ok uncommon. The fact that you can blow your own stuff up to make it grow is a small benefit. The card would read better without the ability, or if you got something beneficial for their destruction outside of the zombie growing bigger. As is, it's hard to judge the balance of a card without rarity because that determines a lot for limited. It would not be a constructed card or even a casually used one. It's pretty weak. A weak card however is less offensive then an overly strong one though.
Creativity - (1.5/3) Uniqueness: Black card that grows whenever a creature is destroyed? Usually we focus on death triggers, so this feels slightly different, but the essentially the idea is the same. The kill you own creature is different, but seems really dated. Usually these days the card would care about death triggers and then sacrifice. Caring about destroying this way feels slightly different but loses practicality. Maybe a wording that worked would convince me. (2/3) Flavor: The name makes sense, and flows into the abilities quite well. There is room for flavor text, which a card like this could take serious advantage of in rendering a creep concept, elaborating on the horror of cannibalism for example.
Polish - (1/3) Quality: Missing rarity. Separate line for cost is weird. P/T should really be at the end of the card. Triggered ability templating doesn't work. (2/2) *Main Challenge: None given so assumed to be met. (2/2) Subchallenges: None given so assumed to be met.
Total: 12.5/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Thank you for your honest feedback. I was a very low-level MTG player, and I stopped playing many years ago but picked up a strong interest in toying around with making my own card ideas just as a fun brain exercise. I honestly didn't expect the card to fare too well because of that, but I definitely appreciate your feedback.
Edit: You had asked about the point of the exile. It was intended as a flavor point - the idea being that a destroyed creature had been consumed by the Cannibal Scourge and thus could never be returned.
Challenge: Design a Legendary Orc creature with a sacrifice trigger.
Klatca of the Fields3RG Legendary Creature - Orc Shaman(M)
Whenever you sacrifice a creature, add its casting cost to your mana pool. (Casting cost includes color.) “They prefer the meat. I enjoy the blood.” 2/3
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MEMNARCH FOR PRESIDENT!!!
All cards I post are designed for custom sets...just saying
Don't hold so fast to your idea of what Magic and the Color Pie is or should be. Just because it was done in the past, but isn't done in the present doesn't mean it can't be done at all. Likewise, just because it wasn't done at all doesn't mean it can't be done.
Here's a tip: If you suggest changing a card...it's helpful to suggest HOW it should be changed.
Challenge: Design a Legendary Orc creature with a sacrifice trigger.
Klatca of the Fields3RG Legendary Creature - Orc Shaman(M)
Whenever you sacrifice a creature, add its casting cost to your mana pool. (Casting cost includes color.) “They prefer the meat. I enjoy the blood.” 2/3
Design - (2/3) Appeal: This card screams johnny from the hills. Spike will probably like it too, because johnny will break it for him. Timmy yawns. (3/3) Elegance: Easy to read and grok. Reminder text is good here.
Development - (2.5/3) Viability: Fast and big mana works for the colors. I could almost see black in this for the sacrifice clause, but I see this working fine as is. Mythic works, but I'd like it more as a rare. It feels like you made it mythic because its combo potential is absurd, but that isn't a factor in limited. Doesn't destroy the game rules wise. (0.5/3) Balance: This is a card that when it hits the board, the game is probably over. It's only purpose would be to combo out, and with no activation costs and a relatively easy effect to build around, this is a card that likely would warp standard, probably commander, and possibly modern too. It's a dud in limited, but at mythic that's ok. I think a card like this would be more interesting if the mana adding effect was a tad more limited and the body made beefier/more board relevant some how. As it, this just leads to unfun gameplay.
Creativity - (2/3) Uniqueness: Similar cards exist, but not to this level of extreme mana production. (1.5/3) Flavor: I don't get why this orc shaman "of the fields" is so interested in blood. The rest vaguely fits into the mechanics, but it's a very loose flavor package.
Polish - (2/3) Quality: Space between name and cost. Space between rarity and type. Don't underline. Don't bold P/T. Ill take off a quarter point for each since they are really nitpicky things, but MCC is nitpicky. (2/2) *Main Challenge: It works. (2/2) Subchallenges: None given.
Total: 17.5/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Elven Bowyer1G
Creature - Elf (U) G, T: Put a Bow counter on target creature.
Creatures with a Bow counter gain "T: Deal damage to target creature equal to this creature's power." "Sometimes all a warrior needs is a really good bow."
1/2
Elven Bowyer1G
Creature - Elf (U) G, T: Put a Bow counter on target creature.
Creatures with a Bow counter gain "T: Deal damage to target creature equal to this creature's power." "Sometimes all a warrior needs is a really good bow."
1/2
Design - (1.5/3) Appeal: This is pretty small for timmy, and the bow counters dont have quite the payoff for him. Johnny wants to spread the bow counters around to everything he or she owns. Spike sees some strong limited applications as repeatable removal, but not constructed ones. (2/3) Elegance: Ignoring improper wordings for later, unique counter types that go on creatures are rarely done these days as they conflict/confuse an environment from having +1/+1 counters or some other more universal counter type. This would probably be better off using +1/+1 counters and being balanced according because as is it'll probably cause some confusion or otherwise limit what you can design in the set you put it in.
Development - (2.5/3) Viability: This card skirts what it is to be green. However, as of our Gatewatch set, green is allowed to have one-sided fight effects now. In what quantity remains to be seen. Uncommon works here, but it's powerful enough to be a rare for limited sake. Though the templating is off, the idea doesn't break the rules in half. (2/3) Balance: This is a limited power house. Probably too strong, as once you set up your board with it relatively cheap bow counters your opponent will nect be able to keep creatures on the board. This should either be a rare, cost more, or have some cost to the activate ability it grants to each bow weilding creature. A single tap is not enough. It might be constructed playable, as putting a counter on the right creature can lock out an opponents board fairly quickly. The idea is interesting, and the card requires some time to set up, but I feel that once it's established is a powerful threat. Too good for limited, interesting elsewhere.
Creativity - (2/3) Uniqueness: There hasn't been a card that grants creature boe effects through bow counters I believe. There have been similiar cards granting tap to deal damage to other creatures however. (1/3) Flavor: Generic. Boring. Uninspired. This seems like the flavor of a card from 15+ years ago. That, and bows are often used to combat flying creatures, but here they just kill everything. Mostly, while the idea works, the flavor here is trite and uninteresting.
Polish - (1/3) Quality: Bow should be lower case. Done twice, so a full point there. The second line should read "Each creature with a bow counter on it has "T: This creature deals damage equal to its power to target creature." The "Each" part ensures that multiple bow counter's on a creature does not grant redundant abilities. The tap ability part is the proper wording for your desired effect. (2/2) *Main Challenge: None given. (2/2) Subchallenges: None given.
Total: 16/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
(1/3) Flavor: Generic. Boring. Uninspired. This seems like the flavor of a card from 15+ years ago. That, and bows are often used to combat flying creatures, but here they just kill everything. Mostly, while the idea works, the flavor here is trite and uninteresting.
As much as I appreciate your honest feedback, I feel this was a bit of a harsh category. I think everything in the card design fits together flavor-wise, and while it might not be the most original concept a 1/3 seems harsh. The name, the creature type, the activated ability (I even gave it a mana cost of G, T to represent the use of time and wood to create the bows), and the name of the bow counters themselves, the ability the bow provides (while it might have been better to make it damage flying creatures, there really are no logical rules in the world that say bows can't or would never be used on ground targets that make this contrary to its flavor), the flavor text, the fact that it's a small creature that's main purpose is to supply the weapons for the real fighters. Honestly I felt like this card was almost pure flavor, and if it's playable that's incidental.
Again, I appreciate the feedback and will probably submit further ideas, because I do feel that this sort of analysis greatly aides me in becoming better at this.
It is a flavorful card. It's just extremely generic flavor that doesn't harken to any specific plane or setting. That's not something wizards does much at all anymore.
The green part of the bow making it was kinda ties it to being more aimed at flying creatures. If you dig through the history of green magic cards that reference creatures with bows, they usually hit fliers and/or have reach. Its not required, but it's far more common.
I did miss the green mana = wood part as something clever, and I could see adding back a half point back based on such, but this card looks like it belongs in a core set (a now extinct concept) with flavor text that instantly fades from memory (yes we get it, a bowyer makes bows. That was the name of the card.) To me personally, it's not that interesting. Take a look at the recent Stone Haven Outfitter from gatewatch. Between it's name and creature types, it establishes a setting and it's flavor text adds to the character and story the card tells as opposed to restating it. It covers a lot more ground with its flavor and takes a standard concept (an armorer) and makes it more distinct. That's what your card is missing here. Distinction.
It is a flavorful card. It's just extremely generic flavor that doesn't harken to any specific plane or setting. That's not something wizards does much at all anymore.
The green part of the bow making it was kinda ties it to being more aimed at flying creatures. If you dig through the history of green magic cards that reference creatures with bows, they usually hit fliers and/or have reach. Its not required, but it's far more common.
I did miss the green mana = wood part as something clever, and I could see adding back a half point back based on such, but this card looks like it belongs in a core set (a now extinct concept) with flavor text that instantly fades from memory (yes we get it, a bowyer makes bows. That was the name of the card.) To me personally, it's not that interesting. Take a look at the recent Stone Haven Outfitter from gatewatch. Between it's name and creature types, it establishes a setting and it's flavor text adds to the character and story the card tells as opposed to restating it. It covers a lot more ground with its flavor and takes a standard concept (an armorer) and makes it more distinct. That's what your card is missing here. Distinction.
Thank you for the further explanation. I truly appreciate that. I can see what you're saying, and you clearly are much better at this and have a better understanding of MTG lore and concepts and mechanics than I do. I'm not actually a MTG player (never was at any more than a very, very basic level like ten years ago), but I took a liking for designing MTG cards based entirely on devising mechanical interactions and making "flavor cards". Thank you again for your honest insight.
Initiate of the Evening Calm2BB
Creature - Assassin (U)
Deathtouch
When Initiate of the Evening Calm enters the battlefield, you may have it deal 1 damage to target creature.
Legacy B(B, Exile this from your graveyard: Target creature you control becomes a copy of this card.) “The night is meant to be dark, but never restless.”
1/3
Thanks for pointing out the missing P/T Ebontail
I was aware of the fact that it's ETB ability doesn't synergize with Legacy. It was deliberate.
Initiate of the Evening Calm2BB
Creature - Assassin (U)
Deathtouch
When Initiate of the Evening Calm enters the battlefield, you may have it deal 1 damage to target creature.
Legacy B(B, Exile this from your graveyard: Target creature you control becomes a copy of this card.) “The night is meant to be dark, but never restless.”
Needs P/T
And wouldn't that keyword be better on creatures with static, activated or triggered abilities? ETB abilities are wasted on it. At the very least his damage should be a death trigger, lots of potential there.
Initiate of the Evening Calm2BB
Creature - Assassin (U)
Deathtouch
When Initiate of the Evening Calm enters the battlefield, you may have it deal 1 damage to target creature.
Legacy B(B, Exile this from your graveyard: Target creature you control becomes a copy of this card.) “The night is meant to be dark, but never restless.”
Needs P/T
And wouldn't that keyword be better on creatures with static, activated or triggered abilities? ETB abilities are wasted on it. At the very least his damage should be a death trigger, lots of potential there.
The idea of this thread if for me, as a regular judge and host to the MCC, to give free judging using the contest rubric. Additionally this is a way for me to keep my judging skills fresh. Please, regardless of what comments may be correct or not, keep your own judging and critique private as they both warp mine and aren't using the rubric. That limits there value since your are not approaching the card from as many angles.
Roadside Trader2UU
Creature - Human Trader (R)
Whenever an opponent draws a card, you gain a value counter.
Remove 3 value counters: Target opponent reveals their hand. Play a creature card from their hand without paying its mana cost. "My deals are so good they're practically a steal. No, really...I steal 'em."
2/2
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm offering my services as a frequent host and judge for the monthly card contest held here on MTGSalvation. I really like to challenge players and evaluate cards. Here in this thread you can take advantage of that! Whether you want some practice designing under the MCC rubric, want an additional opinion outside of the actual contest, or want to submit something just for fun for a detailed review, throw down a post and ill get back to you in a few days.
Some rules:
(X/3) Appeal: Do the different player psychographics (Timmy/Johhny/Spike) have a use for the card?
(X/3) Elegance: Is the card easily understandable at a glance? Do all the flavor and mechanics combined as a whole make sense?
Development -
(X/3) Viability: How well does the card fit into the color wheel? Does it break or bend the rules of the game? Is it the appropriate rarity?
(X/3) Balance: Does the card have a power level appropriate for contemporary constructed/limited environments without breaking them? Does it play well in casual and multiplayer formats? Does it create or fit into a deck/archetype? Does it create an oppressive environment?
Creativity -
(X/3) Uniqueness: Has a card like this ever been printed before? Does it use new mechanics, ideas, or design space? Does it combine old ideas in a new way? Overall, does it feel “fresh”?
(X/3) Flavor: Does the name seem realistic for a card? Does the flavor text sound professional? Do all the flavor elements synch together to please Vorthos players?
Polish -
(X/3) Quality: Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
(X/2) *Main Challenge: Was the main challenge satisfied? Was it approached in a unique or interesting way? Does the card fit the intent of the challenge?
(X/2) Subchallenges: One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Total: X/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Subchallenge 1: Is colorless.
Subchallenge 2: The block mechanic referenced is from more than five years ago.
Sector of the Maelstrom
Land (R)
T: Add C to your mana pool.
T: Add one mana of any color to your mana pool. Spend this mana only to cast a spell with cascade.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
Design -
(1/3) Appeal: Lands like this have little chance with timmy since it doesnt refrence a "cool" tribe or card type. Cascade is too abstract for him. The use of it by johnny is self explanatory; there is nothing for him to solve. Cascade cards have been very powerful, and an environment where they are prevalent would make spike seriously consider a card like this.
(3/3) Elegance: Nothing at all confusing here.
Development -
(3/3) Viability: This makes sense as a rare land. In a set with cascade cards, rare makes more sense then uncommon since it would be supporting a relatively small group of cards. That has been a fairly consistent trend for tribal or keyword/mechanic referencing land cards. The game stays intact.
(2/3) Balance: As far as this kind of effect goes, it's on the weaker side. Cascade cards are a fairly small group of cards, and its rare that you'd build a deck focusing on cascade spells (though its certainly is a fun casual prospective). That makes it more niche then lands like ally encampment or primal beyond, both which have additional upsides besides. Anyone who wants to run Maelstrom Wanderer as their commander will auto include this though.
Creativity -
(1/3) Uniqueness: This card really isnt fresh, outside the "spend... only" clause referring to a keyword ability rather than a tribe/card type. Otherwise it uses the same template and ideas of a half dozen other lands.
(2/3) Flavor: Referencing the maelstrom only makes sense for cascade. There is room for flavor text here to make the card feel more special, but that was ignored.
Polish -
(3/3) Quality: On point.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Accomplished.
(2/2) Subchallenges: Alara Reborn says yes, this is more than 5 years old. As a land, it's colorless.
Total: 19/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
Totally. Once I've reviewed a card from you can post another so long as it's one at a time.
2BB
Creature - Zombie
2/3
Whenever you destroy a creature, exile that creature and put a +1/+0 counter on Cannibal Scourge.
B: Destroy target creature you control.
Design -
(1.5/3) Appeal: Timmy likes that it grows, but really is grossed out by an activate ability to kill your own stuff. Johnny might try to take advantage of its grow with tokens, death triggers, and other shenangians that caused mass death. The power level is pretty low for spike, and the option to kill your creatures for no other beneift then a little pump is not something he likes. The number of options the activate ability has is deceptively limited.
(0.5/3) Elegance: Between formatting issues, not quite working, and using +1/+0 counters this card really isn't that elegant. Also, the fact that you ca use the ability to kill itself is extremely weird. It should at least be "destroy another target creature". At least the way its worded is fairly succinct and contemporary. What's the point of exiling here?
Development -
(1/3) Viability: It is black, i'll grant you that. Rarity is missing, so you lose a full point their. The other think is that the "Whenever" clause doesn't work. You, the player, don't ever destroy creatures. The spells you cast and the creatures that fight for you do. So as is, that ability will not trigger, making the card pointless.
(1/3) Balance: Assuming this card worked (every time something you controlled destroy a creature, it got bigger) this might be an ok uncommon. The fact that you can blow your own stuff up to make it grow is a small benefit. The card would read better without the ability, or if you got something beneficial for their destruction outside of the zombie growing bigger. As is, it's hard to judge the balance of a card without rarity because that determines a lot for limited. It would not be a constructed card or even a casually used one. It's pretty weak. A weak card however is less offensive then an overly strong one though.
Creativity -
(1.5/3) Uniqueness: Black card that grows whenever a creature is destroyed? Usually we focus on death triggers, so this feels slightly different, but the essentially the idea is the same. The kill you own creature is different, but seems really dated. Usually these days the card would care about death triggers and then sacrifice. Caring about destroying this way feels slightly different but loses practicality. Maybe a wording that worked would convince me.
(2/3) Flavor: The name makes sense, and flows into the abilities quite well. There is room for flavor text, which a card like this could take serious advantage of in rendering a creep concept, elaborating on the horror of cannibalism for example.
Polish -
(1/3) Quality: Missing rarity. Separate line for cost is weird. P/T should really be at the end of the card. Triggered ability templating doesn't work.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: None given so assumed to be met.
(2/2) Subchallenges: None given so assumed to be met.
Total: 12.5/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Edit: You had asked about the point of the exile. It was intended as a flavor point - the idea being that a destroyed creature had been consumed by the Cannibal Scourge and thus could never be returned.
Klatca of the Fields3RG
Legendary Creature - Orc Shaman(M)
Whenever you sacrifice a creature, add its casting cost to your mana pool. (Casting cost includes color.)
“They prefer the meat. I enjoy the blood.”
2/3
All cards I post are designed for custom sets...just saying
Don't hold so fast to your idea of what Magic and the Color Pie is or should be. Just because it was done in the past, but isn't done in the present doesn't mean it can't be done at all. Likewise, just because it wasn't done at all doesn't mean it can't be done.
Here's a tip: If you suggest changing a card...it's helpful to suggest HOW it should be changed.
Design -
(2/3) Appeal: This card screams johnny from the hills. Spike will probably like it too, because johnny will break it for him. Timmy yawns.
(3/3) Elegance: Easy to read and grok. Reminder text is good here.
Development -
(2.5/3) Viability: Fast and big mana works for the colors. I could almost see black in this for the sacrifice clause, but I see this working fine as is. Mythic works, but I'd like it more as a rare. It feels like you made it mythic because its combo potential is absurd, but that isn't a factor in limited. Doesn't destroy the game rules wise.
(0.5/3) Balance: This is a card that when it hits the board, the game is probably over. It's only purpose would be to combo out, and with no activation costs and a relatively easy effect to build around, this is a card that likely would warp standard, probably commander, and possibly modern too. It's a dud in limited, but at mythic that's ok. I think a card like this would be more interesting if the mana adding effect was a tad more limited and the body made beefier/more board relevant some how. As it, this just leads to unfun gameplay.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: Similar cards exist, but not to this level of extreme mana production.
(1.5/3) Flavor: I don't get why this orc shaman "of the fields" is so interested in blood. The rest vaguely fits into the mechanics, but it's a very loose flavor package.
Polish -
(2/3) Quality: Space between name and cost. Space between rarity and type. Don't underline. Don't bold P/T. Ill take off a quarter point for each since they are really nitpicky things, but MCC is nitpicky.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: It works.
(2/2) Subchallenges: None given.
Total: 17.5/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
Creature - Elf (U)
G, T: Put a Bow counter on target creature.
Creatures with a Bow counter gain "T: Deal damage to target creature equal to this creature's power."
"Sometimes all a warrior needs is a really good bow."
1/2
Design -
(1.5/3) Appeal: This is pretty small for timmy, and the bow counters dont have quite the payoff for him. Johnny wants to spread the bow counters around to everything he or she owns. Spike sees some strong limited applications as repeatable removal, but not constructed ones.
(2/3) Elegance: Ignoring improper wordings for later, unique counter types that go on creatures are rarely done these days as they conflict/confuse an environment from having +1/+1 counters or some other more universal counter type. This would probably be better off using +1/+1 counters and being balanced according because as is it'll probably cause some confusion or otherwise limit what you can design in the set you put it in.
Development -
(2.5/3) Viability: This card skirts what it is to be green. However, as of our Gatewatch set, green is allowed to have one-sided fight effects now. In what quantity remains to be seen. Uncommon works here, but it's powerful enough to be a rare for limited sake. Though the templating is off, the idea doesn't break the rules in half.
(2/3) Balance: This is a limited power house. Probably too strong, as once you set up your board with it relatively cheap bow counters your opponent will nect be able to keep creatures on the board. This should either be a rare, cost more, or have some cost to the activate ability it grants to each bow weilding creature. A single tap is not enough. It might be constructed playable, as putting a counter on the right creature can lock out an opponents board fairly quickly. The idea is interesting, and the card requires some time to set up, but I feel that once it's established is a powerful threat. Too good for limited, interesting elsewhere.
Creativity -
(2/3) Uniqueness: There hasn't been a card that grants creature boe effects through bow counters I believe. There have been similiar cards granting tap to deal damage to other creatures however.
(1/3) Flavor: Generic. Boring. Uninspired. This seems like the flavor of a card from 15+ years ago. That, and bows are often used to combat flying creatures, but here they just kill everything. Mostly, while the idea works, the flavor here is trite and uninteresting.
Polish -
(1/3) Quality: Bow should be lower case. Done twice, so a full point there. The second line should read "Each creature with a bow counter on it has "T: This creature deals damage equal to its power to target creature." The "Each" part ensures that multiple bow counter's on a creature does not grant redundant abilities. The tap ability part is the proper wording for your desired effect.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: None given.
(2/2) Subchallenges: None given.
Total: 16/25
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
As much as I appreciate your honest feedback, I feel this was a bit of a harsh category. I think everything in the card design fits together flavor-wise, and while it might not be the most original concept a 1/3 seems harsh. The name, the creature type, the activated ability (I even gave it a mana cost of G, T to represent the use of time and wood to create the bows), and the name of the bow counters themselves, the ability the bow provides (while it might have been better to make it damage flying creatures, there really are no logical rules in the world that say bows can't or would never be used on ground targets that make this contrary to its flavor), the flavor text, the fact that it's a small creature that's main purpose is to supply the weapons for the real fighters. Honestly I felt like this card was almost pure flavor, and if it's playable that's incidental.
Again, I appreciate the feedback and will probably submit further ideas, because I do feel that this sort of analysis greatly aides me in becoming better at this.
The green part of the bow making it was kinda ties it to being more aimed at flying creatures. If you dig through the history of green magic cards that reference creatures with bows, they usually hit fliers and/or have reach. Its not required, but it's far more common.
I did miss the green mana = wood part as something clever, and I could see adding back a half point back based on such, but this card looks like it belongs in a core set (a now extinct concept) with flavor text that instantly fades from memory (yes we get it, a bowyer makes bows. That was the name of the card.) To me personally, it's not that interesting. Take a look at the recent Stone Haven Outfitter from gatewatch. Between it's name and creature types, it establishes a setting and it's flavor text adds to the character and story the card tells as opposed to restating it. It covers a lot more ground with its flavor and takes a standard concept (an armorer) and makes it more distinct. That's what your card is missing here. Distinction.
Thank you for the further explanation. I truly appreciate that. I can see what you're saying, and you clearly are much better at this and have a better understanding of MTG lore and concepts and mechanics than I do. I'm not actually a MTG player (never was at any more than a very, very basic level like ten years ago), but I took a liking for designing MTG cards based entirely on devising mechanical interactions and making "flavor cards". Thank you again for your honest insight.
Sorcery (R)
Discard a card, draw four cards, discard a card.
"junk... junk... junk... keeper... junk..." - Kezzik, Izzet outfitter
Also considered making it instant but only draw three cards but that is effectively zero net cards gained.
Creature - Assassin (U)
Deathtouch
When Initiate of the Evening Calm enters the battlefield, you may have it deal 1 damage to target creature.
Legacy B (B, Exile this from your graveyard: Target creature you control becomes a copy of this card.)
“The night is meant to be dark, but never restless.”
1/3
Thanks for pointing out the missing P/T Ebontail
Choose one of these judge of creation:
Make Strionic Resonator shine!
You can not grasp the true form of Ashiok's attack!
Needs P/T
And wouldn't that keyword be better on creatures with static, activated or triggered abilities? ETB abilities are wasted on it. At the very least his damage should be a death trigger, lots of potential there.
The idea of this thread if for me, as a regular judge and host to the MCC, to give free judging using the contest rubric. Additionally this is a way for me to keep my judging skills fresh. Please, regardless of what comments may be correct or not, keep your own judging and critique private as they both warp mine and aren't using the rubric. That limits there value since your are not approaching the card from as many angles.
Creature - Human Trader (R)
Whenever an opponent draws a card, you gain a value counter.
Remove 3 value counters: Target opponent reveals their hand. Play a creature card from their hand without paying its mana cost.
"My deals are so good they're practically a steal. No, really...I steal 'em."
2/2